Why Every Arbitrator Needs Mediation Training: Bridging the Skills Gap

Recent Trends in Dispute Resolution

Dispute resolution practice has shifted noticeably toward hybrid models. Many arbitration cases now see participants requesting settlement discussions mid-proceeding, and institutional rules increasingly permit arbitrators to facilitate negotiations. This trend places new pressure on arbitrators who were trained solely for adjudicative roles. At the same time, parties expect faster, less adversarial processes, making mediation-like techniques valuable even within binding arbitration.

• Growth of “arb-med” and “med-arb” protocols in commercial and investor-state disputes.
• Increased willingness of tribunals to encourage settlement without ceding neutrality.
• Rising party demand for cost control and relationship preservation, especially in long-term contracts.

Background: The Traditional Divide

Arbitrators and mediators have historically operated in separate lanes. Arbitration training emphasizes procedural fairness, evidence assessment, and legally reasoned awards. Mediation training focuses on communication, interest exploration, and consensus-building. The two skill sets rarely overlapped in formal education. As a result, many arbitrators lack experience in managing settlement dynamics, reading emotional cues, or reframing positions—tools that could prevent impasse and reduce hearing days.

User Concerns: Why Arbitrators Seek Mediation Skills

Arbitrators who serve in complex commercial or international cases frequently encounter situations where mediation training would have helped them respond more effectively. Common concerns include:

• Party control—Parties sometimes prefer arbitrators who can guide settlement talks without abandoning neutrality.
• Efficiency—Early settlement conversations can shorten proceedings, but they require facilitative skills most arbitrators were never taught.
• Risk reduction—Poorly handled settlement attempts can lead to due-process challenges or perceptions of bias. Mediation training provides clear frameworks for managing those moments.
• Credibility—Institutions and users increasingly view cross-training as a mark of professional maturity, not a conflict of interest.

Likely Impact on the Profession

If arbitration practitioners integrate mediation training broadly, several changes are likely. Case management may become more adaptive, with arbitrators knowing when to suggest a caucus or joint session. The quality of settlement awards and consent orders could improve as arbitrators become more attuned to underlying interests. Over time, training bodies and rosters may require demonstrated competency in facilitative skills, narrowing the gap between the two disciplines. Practitioners who already hold dual credentials are likely to be preferred for complex multiparty disputes.

What to Watch Next

• Whether major arbitral institutions revise their ethical guidelines or practice notes to explicitly allow or encourage settlement facilitation by arbitrators.
• The emergence of combined certification programs that grant joint mediator-arbitrator credentials from recognized bodies.
• Feedback from users—corporate counsel and law firms—on whether they value or resist hybrid roles in arbitration clauses.
• Development of continuing education requirements that mandate a minimum number of mediation training hours for appointed arbitrators.