Draft Arbitrator Nomination Letter

Skill: ICC Arbitrator Nomination Letter

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Treating the letter as a generic nomination notice instead of a case-specific institutional filing, which risks omitting the case reference, the correct addressee, or the nominating party’s identity.
• Assuming a default nomination period without checking the arbitration agreement and the applicable institutional rule, which can misstate whether the nomination is timely.
• Naming the nominee’s credentials but failing to disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably be viewed as relevant to independence or impartiality.
• Disclosing relationships without a brief, candid explanation of timing, nature, and current status, leaving the institution unable to assess the significance of the disclosure.
• Omitting the nominee’s express confirmation of availability, which can create avoidable administrative follow-up or later appointment issues.
• Failing to confirm whether the tribunal is sole or multi-member and what role the nominee is proposed to fill, which can make the nomination ambiguous.
• Leaving out a confidentiality acknowledgment, which is a standard feature of a serious arbitrator nomination and helps show the nominee understands the proceeding’s confidential character.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• The nomination deadline is controlled first by the arbitration agreement, then by the applicable institutional rules if the agreement is silent; the letter should state which source governs and why.
• The governing institutional rule for arbitrator nominations should be identified by name and article/rule number where available, rather than described only generically.
• Independence and impartiality are assessed through proactive disclosure of any circumstance that a reasonable reader could view as potentially relevant, even if counsel believes it is not disqualifying.
• Prior professional overlap, repeat engagements, shared firm or institutional settings, academic collaboration, and other comparable connections should be disclosed succinctly with a neutral explanation.
• Public writing, speaking, or other professional commentary on the subject area should be disclosed if it could be perceived as relevant, with a statement that general expertise is not the same as prejudgment of the dispute.
• In a multi-arbitrator tribunal, the letter should identify whether the nominee is intended as party-appointed arbitrator, co-arbitrator, or another tribunal role consistent with the appointment mechanics.
• The nominee’s availability should be confirmed in terms that are operationally useful to the institution, including willingness to serve and absence of known scheduling conflicts.
• The nominee should acknowledge the confidential nature of the proceedings and agree to respect it.

4. Analytical scaffolds

• Identify the administering institution, case number or reference, and the parties from the source correspondence before drafting.
• Identify the nominating party precisely and use that party consistently throughout the letter.
• Identify the nominee with full name and professional title as reflected in the source materials.
• Determine the governing nomination deadline by checking the arbitration clause first, then the institutional rule set; if multiple sources could apply, state the controlling source and briefly explain the hierarchy.
• For every potentially relevant relationship or circumstance, decide whether it should be disclosed conservatively; if yes, disclose it in plain language and explain why it is not understood to impair impartiality.
• Confirm availability from the nominee’s own communication or instructions, and do not infer availability from silence.
• Confirm the tribunal structure and the nominee’s intended role using the terminology that matches the actual appointment.
• Include any required independence, impartiality, and confidentiality statements in a form that is formal, concise, and institution-facing.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• If the source set contains more than one possible deadline source, resolve them in order of priority: contract first, then institutional rule, then any case-specific direction from the administering institution.
• If there are multiple relationships to disclose, present them as separate disclosures rather than collapsing them into one omnibus statement.
• If there is more than one procedural milestone in the source documents, anchor the nomination’s timeliness to the relevant nomination deadline and any immediate follow-on step that depends on it.
• If the tribunal is not yet fully constituted, make the nominee’s role explicit enough that the institution can see how the nomination fits the overall tribunal structure.

6. Output structure conventions

• Draft as a formal letter addressed to the administering institution.
• Include a clear subject line with the case reference and the purpose of the submission.
• Identify the nominating party and the nominee near the top of the letter.
• State the applicable nomination deadline and the source that controls it.
• Include a discrete disclosure section for any potentially relevant relationships or circumstances, each with a brief explanation.
• Include an express availability confirmation.
• Confirm the tribunal structure and the nominee’s intended role.
• Include an express confidentiality acknowledgment.
• End with a standard signature block and any necessary contact details.
• Keep the tone formal, neutral, and institution-ready; the letter should read as a filing, not an advocacy submission.