This requires an insightful eye which can discriminate between the substantive and the frivolous. Experience is the master, and counsel representing clients cannot gamble on newcomers or give them a chance to learn at the client's expense. Robert Fougner did concede that, when addressing a relatively simple dispute, counsel can be a bit more relaxed and flexible in their recommendations of arbitrators. When arbitrators are selected for major cases, i.e., cases where either the magnitude of the sums or the type of relief sought will have a substantial impact on the economic viability of the parties, there is no room for beginners, and counsel must rely on the most experienced arbitrators available. You don't need a specialist panel to hear a particular case From the commercial arbitrator's standpoint, matters are certainly easier - unless the idea of wanting or having to please one's appointer with a win or dissent enters into the equation.
Attorneys have to win arbitrations for their clients.
Arbitrators, generally speaking, are only concerned with the result or the esoteric process of arriving at the decision. Attorneys may recommend a certain course of action, but arbitrators only receive and consider the evidence and then pass judgment. Since counsel are judged by their record of success and not really by whether they had a good or bad hand, winning a case must be the main concern for their own self-preservation and career advancement. Arbitrators, on the other hand, don't feel the same economic and professional pressure, and enjoy the olympic spirit in which participating is more important than winning. Different parties have different expectations as to an arbitrator's required qualifications.