What do you regard as the most important differences between arbitration and litigation in court?
Arbitration allows the parties to a commercial dispute to have a voice in identifying the qualities that they want in the persons selected to resolve their dispute.  The parties also have a greater influence over the pace and process for bringing the dispute to a reliable and justifiable conclusion.  Subject to my distinct responsibility as an arbitrator to advance the proceedings efficiently, I give substantial deference to the parties’ views about how the arbitration should unfold. 

Do you believe that there is a role in arbitration for dispositive motions?
I am a strong supporter of dispositive motions that may efficiently resolve a commercial dispute promptly or at least focus the further proceedings on matters genuinely in dispute.  If properly screened, requests to file dispositive motions can help fulfill one of the key advantages of arbitration, the prompt and efficient resolution of commercial disputes.  Not every arbitration requires a full evidentiary hearing.

Do you believe that arbitrators have the right or an obligation to conduct their own legal research?
In my view, arbitrators should refrain from conducting independent legal research, unless the parties explicitly authorize such an initiative. The essence of commercial arbitration is that it is “the parties’ process.”  Accordingly, it is the parties who have the primary responsibility for framing the governing legal principles.  If the arbitrator believes that the parties have overlooked some salient legal doctrine or authority, the arbitrator should invite the parties to address the question, not go off on an independent research project.