In arbitration courts, a single case is most often adjudicated by as many as three arbitrators. The first is appointed by the claimant, the second by the respondent, and the third by the arbitrators themselves. An alternative method of appointing arbitrators, practised in some arbitration courts, is drawing lots. In the case of drawing lots, the parties have no influence over who will adjudicate their case – this closely resembles the situation familiar from common courts. What are the advantages of both these solutions and why does this issue translate into the speed of proceedings?

Undoubtedly, the ability to choose one's own arbitrator sometimes has its merits. Among the available arbitrators, we can choose the one whose specialization, professional achievements, or academic work best fit the nature of the case. This is particularly important because cases in fields such as unfair competition or intellectual property are relatively complex. It is advisable for competent professionals to handle them. Furthermore, the very act of choosing arbitrators is associated with honouring them and builds a certain bond of understanding, uniqueness, and trust among the parties involved.

Unfortunately, courts in the aforementioned format cannot work efficiently. Generally, a party does not trust the arbitrator chosen by the opponent. Additionally, there must be as many as three arbitrators – each party has the right to appoint an arbitrator, and to the arbitrators chosen by the parties, a third one must be added to make the number of arbitrators odd, allowing decisions to be made. The parties have no influence over the selection of this third arbitrator. The arbitrators and parties then have to find a convenient date to conduct the first and subsequent hearings. A friendly atmosphere provides room for leniency with the initiative of evidence – all evidence presented is examined. Consequently, cases before such arbitration courts take just as long as cases before common courts.

At Ultima Ratio, we decided to appoint arbitrators by drawing lots. After all, we are an electronic court, where the choice of specific arbitrators would not perform its intended role, as the parties would not have direct contact with them anyway. Instead, we build the element of trust in Ultima Ratio on the foundation of the notarial corporation and impartial notaries. Therefore, our cases can be adjudicated individually. This allows for a decision to be issued within a swift 21-day period.

Conducting research and interviews with a group of entrepreneurs, we found that the ability to choose an arbitrator for adjudicating a case is not a significant issue for them. By opting for arbitration, they express trust not in specific arbitrators – whom they cannot point out at the contract stage – but in the institution behind the court. In the case of Ultima Ratio, that institution is the Association of Notaries of the Republic of Poland. Entrepreneurs appreciate the fact that our Association ensures the proper level of issued judgments, the impartiality of arbitrators, consistency of rulings in similar cases, and strict supervision over the adjudication process. Our research provided grounds to assume that entrepreneurs would feel comfortable knowing that a dispute between them would be resolved by an independent arbitrator drawn from the Ultima Ratio list of arbitrators.

In arbitration courts, after all, an arbitrator is not a representative or advocate of the party who chose them. Consequently, such a party cannot expect them to safeguard their interests at the expense of the other party.

This does not mean, of course, that in the name of proceeding speed, we disregard the substantive level of issued judgments or the friendly atmosphere between the parties. The algorithm for drawing an arbitrator will consider their specialisation in a given field of law. The arbitrator will always be able to use the help of a special panel of experts. We have ensured the communication between the parties and the arbitrator by designing a chat dedicated to each case. We assumed that, nowadays, people primarily communicate in this way. On the chat, the parties will be able – also in real-time – to discuss, submit motions, respond to the arbitrator's questions or doubts, inquire about the status of the case, conduct settlement negotiations, or agree on an eventual teleconference date. This tool should inspire trust in Ultima Ratio at least to the same extent as the direct contact between parties and arbitrators inspires trust in other arbitration courts.