In an arbitration, the parties choose the arbitrator themselves whenever they can agree. When they can’t, an arbitration institution such as the AAA or JAMS runs a structured selection process, and if that fails too, a federal or state court will appoint one. So the short answer to who chooses an arbitrator is: the parties first, an institution second, and a court as the last resort.
Which of those three paths you end up on depends on what your arbitration clause says and how cooperative the other side is once a dispute lands.
The Parties Choose First
Most arbitration clauses either name a specific arbitrator or say the parties will mutually agree on one. When both sides cooperate, this is the simplest route and gives you the most control. You can target someone with real experience in your industry, review their past rulings, and go in knowing neither side was forced to accept an unknown decision-maker.
In practice, each side proposes names, exchanges short lists, researches the candidates, and negotiates until they land on someone acceptable. The whole thing depends on good faith. If one side stalls or refuses to engage, the arbitration clause usually points to a fallback, and that fallback is almost always an arbitration institution.
When an Institution Picks the Arbitrator
If the clause delegates selection to a provider, or if the parties simply can’t agree, an arbitration institution handles it. Organizations like the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and JAMS maintain rosters of vetted arbitrators across construction, finance, technology, healthcare, employment, and many other fields.
The List-and-Rank Method
Under AAA’s standard commercial procedure, the institution sends both parties the same list of 10 names drawn from its national roster. The parties are encouraged to agree on one. If they can’t, each side has 14 calendar days to strike names it finds unacceptable and rank the rest in order of preference. Neither side sees the other’s list. The AAA then cross-references the rankings and invites the highest mutually preferred candidate to serve.1American Arbitration Association. AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules – Rule R-13
If no name survives the cross-reference, or if every acceptable candidate declines, the AAA can appoint directly from its roster without sending a second list. One trap worth flagging: a party that fails to return the list within 14 days is treated as having accepted every name on it, so missing the deadline hands away your strike rights entirely.1American Arbitration Association. AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules – Rule R-13
JAMS and Other Providers
JAMS runs a similar process, drawing from a directory of roughly 500 dispute resolution professionals with searchable bios so the parties can evaluate credentials before ranking.2JAMS. Neutrals Search Other providers, including the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and CPR, use comparable list-and-rank procedures with their own timelines and list sizes. The underlying logic is the same: structured narrowing by the parties, with the institution breaking any deadlock.
Three-Arbitrator Panels and Choosing the Chair
Larger or more complex disputes sometimes use a three-arbitrator panel instead of a sole arbitrator. In the usual tripartite setup, each side appoints one arbitrator, and those two party-appointed arbitrators then select the third, who serves as chair.3ADR.org. AAA Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option for Large Complex Cases The chair typically drives the procedural calendar and, in close cases, can be the deciding vote.
Under AAA rules, if the two party-appointed arbitrators don’t choose a chair within 14 days of the last appointment, the AAA steps in and picks one. The ICC and some other institutions reserve similar authority to appoint when the agreed process stalls.
Expectations about neutrality depend on the setting. In most domestic commercial arbitrations, all three members are expected to be impartial and independent. In international arbitration, that expectation is even more firmly established. Where party-appointed arbitrators are designated as non-neutral, they still have to disclose anything that could affect their independence, though the opposing side generally cannot disqualify them on the disclosures alone.4JAMS. Arbitrators Ethics Guidelines
When a Court Appoints the Arbitrator
Court appointment is the backstop. Under Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act, if the arbitration agreement doesn’t specify a selection method, or if the specified method fails for any reason, either party can ask a court to appoint an arbitrator. The statute says the court “shall designate and appoint” one, and that arbitrator serves with the same authority as if the parties had named them in the agreement itself.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 9 USC 5 – Appointment of Arbitrators or Umpire
Courts also step in when one side refuses to participate in selection, when an arbitrator resigns or becomes incapacitated mid-case, or when a vacancy otherwise needs filling. Unless the agreement says otherwise, the default under federal law is a single arbitrator.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 9 USC 5 – Appointment of Arbitrators or Umpire Many state arbitration statutes contain parallel provisions, so the safety valve exists at both the state and federal level.
Consumer and Employment Cases
If you’re an employee or a consumer bound by a pre-dispute arbitration clause in a contract you didn’t negotiate, the selection process has extra guardrails. Arbitration institutions have adopted rules designed to keep the company that drafted the clause from dominating the choice of arbitrator.
Under the JAMS employment arbitration minimum standards, the arbitrator must be neutral and the employee must have a meaningful right to participate in selection. The company bears the cost of the arbitrator’s professional fees and most administrative charges, and the only fee the employee can be required to pay is the JAMS initial case management fee.6JAMS. Employment Arbitration Minimum Standards The AAA has a comparable set of consumer arbitration rules.
These protections exist because courts have occasionally struck down arbitration clauses as unconscionable when they imposed excessive costs or limited the weaker party’s ability to participate in choosing the decision-maker.
Disclosures and Conflicts
Picking a name isn’t the end of selection. Every arbitrator must disclose any relationship, interest, or background that could affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality. The obligation runs continuously from appointment through the final award.7FINRA. Arbitrator Ethics – Section: Disclosure Requirements
The AAA puts the standard bluntly: if a relationship or interest crosses the arbitrator’s mind, it should be disclosed, and any doubt is resolved in favor of disclosure. Disclosures have to be in writing and detailed enough for the parties to evaluate the potential conflict.8American Arbitration Association. The What, Why, and How of Arbitrator Disclosures
Disclosable items include financial interests in the outcome or ties to a party, prior legal work the arbitrator’s firm has done for a party (including small matters), repeat appointments involving the same party or law firm, meaningful social or professional connections with counsel, and conflicts carried over from firm mergers. If new counsel enters the case or a new expert witness is disclosed during discovery, the arbitrator has to run fresh conflict checks and update the disclosures.8American Arbitration Association. The What, Why, and How of Arbitrator Disclosures
Challenging an Arbitrator After Selection
If a conflict surfaces after appointment, you aren’t stuck. Most institutional rules let a party challenge an arbitrator for bias or lack of independence. The standard is generally objective: would a reasonable person, looking at the facts, have justifiable doubts about impartiality? Your subjective belief isn’t enough on its own.
Timing is critical. Challenges have to be raised promptly after you learn the facts, often within days or weeks under institutional rules. Sitting on the information and raising it only after an unfavorable award usually forfeits the point.
If the award has already come out, the Federal Arbitration Act provides a narrow route to vacatur. A court can set aside an award where there was “evident partiality or corruption” in the arbitrator.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 9 U.S. Code 10 – Same; Vacation; Grounds; Rehearing Courts read “evident partiality” strictly. You generally need to show a concrete, undisclosed relationship or financial interest, not just a general suspicion that the hearing felt unfair.