DisputesLoop goes active in January. The website allows firms to put appointments out to tender and then monitor the results through published peer reviews. Rushton says those seeking to appoint arbitrators can go to the site and find impartial information about arbitrators’ skills, availability and standards of service.
How did the idea come about?
I've been a legal reporter for 12 years and over that period I've enjoyed access to all the leading figures in the field. I can say with some authority that lawyers need better information about fellow professionals.
You are the editor of a mediator magazine, so I assume most of your contacts will be in that practice. How will you reach out to the arbitration community?
It's a question of getting the right people talking about it. I hope interest in the site will follow the same pattern among arbitrators as it has among mediators: the market leaders have been the first to recognise and embrace the idea, and others have followed.
Marketing will begin in earnest in January, first in the UK, and then we’ll branch out internationally.
Have any arbitrators signed on?
Pre-launch, we've got arbitrators who also work as mediators, but I anticipate a serious influx of arbitrators when we reveal which firms will be advertising appointments on the site.
Why is the initiative important?
At present it is extremely difficult to get authoritative, impartial, information about dispute resolution professionals. What they do, by and large, is confidential, with the result that this market, more so than any other, is driven by rumour and conjecture.
First-hand information is seldom recorded in writing for fear of defamation or data protections issues, and what information firms have tends to be one-sided, anecdotal and out of date.
Three factors influence the outcome of a case: the facts, the law, and where appropriate, your choice of arbitrator. You can only control one of these factors, so it's in yours and your client's interests to get the best information possible. Can you get this from clerks and service providers? I'd suggest not. They have a financial interest in selling up arbitrators' availability, skills and standards of service. Given the choice I'd prefer an impartial view.
Who should be contributing?
There is no law firm in the world that can't benefit from the site, and those striving for a better market and more rational and justifiable appointments are stepping forward.
How is it financed?
Arbitrator profiles are available for £200 a year - this includes receiving appointment alerts, and the opportunity to define expertise in over 100 areas of practice. Law firms have a choice: they can buy a subscription, or sign an agreement to pay a partner's billable hour each time use of the site leads to a successful appointment.
What has the feedback been so far?
Overwhelmingly positive. Arbitrators like the site as it offers a means of independently corroborating their worth. Law firms like it because they potentially alert the entire field - not just a bunch of cronies - drive competition, and make better appointments.
What problems might the website encounter?
The key challenge is getting law firms to change their behaviour. Everyone recognises the difficulties with the current system - perfectly illustrated by Anthony Sinclair's research on how long ICSID arbitrations take. But embracing a new approach will take time to prove its worth.
How do you plan to overcome these problems?
It is a question of momentum. Once most firms are using the site and appointments are accumulating at a respectable pace, who will want to be left out of "the Loop?"
There has been some concern over privacy issues. What are your thoughts?
I struggle to see any problems with putting a job out for tender which can't be got round. It's not hard to draft your requirements of an arbitrator without divulging confidential information.
There is a chance that defamatory remarks will be posted about arbitrators. How do you plan to overcome this issue?
To safeguard users against factually inaccurate or unjustifiable feedback being left about arbitrators, we have taken a variety of steps.
In order to leave feedback users must register, which involves an email verification process. The feedback has to relate to work on a specified date, so if necessary a nexus between you and the feedback-leaver can be verified. Most importantly, all feedback is automatically quarantined for a period of seven days until we, as publishers, have ‘okayed’ it for publication, and arbitrators have been given an opportunity to make representations.
