a) If it is the parties to a dispute who are asking, the answer is simple: find someone who will be suitable to decide the dispute and appoint that person; and by that appointment, that person would be turned into an arbitrator. For practical purposes, it does not matter who the appointed person is provided that person is willing to act and providing the parties are agreed that they wish to have that person as their arbitrator.

b) If it is a person who wants to become an arbitrator who is asking, the answer is not so simple. If such a person is not chosen by the parties directly, that person will have to make a suitable impression upon someone with the power to appoint arbitrators; i.e. by demonstrating that he or she has the capabilities to act as an arbitrator. For practical purposes, the person who wants to become an arbitrator will usually need to impress a standing committee of some kind; and also an administrator who is closely connected to a person with the power to make arbitral appointments. In any event, the person who wants to become an arbitrator will have to make the right impression upon someone, somewhere, who is in a position to make arbitral appointments and/or recommendations.

c) If it is the person who is making appointments, or making re-commendations, who is asking, the answer is more complicated. Although such a person has the power, at the stroke of a pen, to make an arbitrator, such a person has daunting obligations: obligations to the parties; obligations to the appointing body; obligations to the arbitral system; obligations to be fair in the selection process. Even when the task is just a matter of recommending an arbitrator, the same obligations are present.

It is obvious to state that anyone who carries the burdens of making appointments or recommendations is more likely to use tried and trusted arbitrators. But, no matter how obvious, no one really wants to hear such a statement - at least, not from anyone who is representing a body, of some 10,000 members, which calls itself the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

In writing these observations, I am reminded of two events:

i) In the early 1970s, at a conference of the Institute that was held in Cambridge, there was much discussion from the body of the meeting about members who never got the chance to be an arbitrator. The late Arthur Ginnings stood up and said something to the effect that most members would never be arbitrators. He said that most members joined the Institute to take an interest in arbitration - they would be the fence-builders to save other people from getting into disputes, i.e. because they understood more about conflict. He also said that these members would be better able to help when they were in some way involved in the arbitral process because they would understand what arbitration was all about. When Arthur Ginnings sat down, the discussion intensified. Most of those present had never acted as arbitrators and they were unimpressed with such observations because, although Arthur Ginnings spoke wisely, it seemed that most of those in attendance had joined the Institute because they wanted to act as arbitrators. In a general discussion afterwards, it was suggested that the Institute's name be changed to the Institute of Arbitration in order to reflect the actual status of the members generally. Mr J.R.W. Alexander (President 1952-55 and probably the most senior member present) expressed the view that because the existing name of the Institute was an important factor in increasing the membership numbers (ie, because members liked the title of the Institute of Arbitrators in the letters behind their name) it would be unwise to make any change. He added that any loss of membership because of a change of name would seriously affect the funding of the Institute. In more recent times, the notion of a name change to the Chartered Institute of Arbitration was speculated upon by Past Chairman, Brian Green, who posed the question publicly in his 1995 statement (see the Annual Report).

ii) At an Institute function in London in the mid 1970s, I was standing in a queue beside the late Douglas McClure Fisher (a Past Vice-President) and also by one of the prominent Past-Presidents of the Institute (who was a very active arbitrator, but now no longer with us). The Past-President was saying that he was so busy acting as an arbitrator that he had no time to himself. He said that he was working evenings and weekends and there was little respite. I asked him why he accepted so many appointments if he was so busy, and I asked why he did not simply say 'no' every now and again. The Past-President looked at me - I dare not describe the look - and then turned his attention solely back to Douglas McClure Fisher and carried on talking. Douglas butted in and said, "That's a fair question, why don't you ever say, 'No,' to an offer of an appointment?" The Past-President, being a little taken aback, reflected a moment and then said that he believed there should be a small pool of highly competent arbitrators who did all the arbitrations which stemmed from the appointing system; which small pool would be added to only upon the retirement of any existing member. Subsequently, upon reflecting on that situation, I am sure that such thinking was probably based primarily upon the fact that it was safer to appoint only arbitrators who were already established - others, of course, may have taken a different view of such an attitude.

In due course, Mr John Corkill became President (1975-76). He had contemplated all such things and he came to the conclusion that something must be done about it. He thought that all members of the Institute had a right to be considered for appointments and he set up the Panels for Arbitrators. These Panels were to be the public recognition of members who were considered suitable to be appointed as arbitrator. (In this respect, it must be noted that the Institute hoped that it would become the appointing body for arbitration generally or, at least, that other appointing authorities would select arbitrators only from the Institute's Panels; but, that is a different story.) The Institute's Panels were established with grades that indicated status. In general terms, one could say that there were three grades of membership for each field (ie, construction, shipping, etc.) of dispute, namely: a person who was considered all right to act as arbitrator, but not yet tested in action; considered all right, but only acted once or more times on small to medium disputes; and very experienced and suitable for all disputes.

A new wave of enthusiasm swept through the Institute, for the first time, everyone could see how the panels could be reached. But there was a problem. Apart from making appointments from the short-list of the old school of established arbitrators and, of course, a few members who were patronized, it seemed that no-one in authority was keen to risk selecting a new member on the panels; especially one who had never acted as arbitrator before. Thus, the panels caused a problem because those whose names were added were often heard to complain that they did not get appointments. As Mr Corkill said at the time, here "we come up against the chicken and egg situation."

One of the methods which were chosen to improve the confidence of those responsible for selecting and appointing arbitrators was the pupillage scheme. It got off to a difficult start. One problem was that a large number of members sought pupil masters, but there were very few arbitrators with sufficient work to accommodate them. Moreover, the most competent arbitrators often saw their arbitrations through to a conclusion without hearings because they managed the procedure in a way that led the parties to reach a settlement. Thus, it was difficult for members to find a pupil master; and many of those who secured a pupil master saw very little of the real-life interface between the arbitrator and the parties. So, the pupillage scheme became, for many potential arbitrators, a hurdle to success. Indeed, Mr Kenneth Severn (Chairman 1979-80), in his inaugural address, noted that "the Institute's pupillage scheme still has its problems." Now, nearly a quarter of a century on from its inception, it seems - according to the President, Dr Nael Bunni - that the pupillage scheme still has its problems.

In fact, Dr Nael Bunni's talk to the South East Branch (19 September 2000) was the instigation for this contribution because he called upon the members present for their views on the matter. He, himself, seemed to take the view that there was a logistic difficulty in satisfying the pupillage scheme's requirements and, furthermore, that there was no guarantee that a pupil master was going to pass on guidance which was satisfactory.

In essence, I believe that our President is correct because there is no right way to manage an arbitration, but there are some wrong ways. Those wrong ways are best discovered by general communication of knowledge among groups of people who have experiences to share. For my part, I believe that regular attendance at Branch meetings is the best method for sharing those experiences.

I am writing in support of our President in his desire to abandon the pupillage scheme for the reasons which he has stated. However, I would not support any new scheme which claimed to teach members the right or best way to undertake an arbitration. Too often, there have been ideas about training which simply amounted to pushing arbitrators into the safe jam jar of conformity. Instead, we should train as we preach: we should teach infinite flexibility in procedure to ensure that the true power of arbitration is available to deal with the particular dispute solely for the benefit of parties who are in dispute. But, of course, we return to where the story began: teaching arbitrators to be flexible and to use their own initiative is no comfort to the people with power to make appointments and recommendations - such people seek only the tried and trusted hand. They may sometimes be tempted to try someone who fits the jam jar, but that is not what arbitration is all about.

In a sense, we see an Institute which has been forever seeking to be successful, but mortified by the consequences of success. Pupillage is just one symptom of this dilemma. Pupillage is no longer the helping hand of progression as envisaged by Mr Corkill, it has become the insurmountable barrier.