I refer to the articles in Issue 44 of N&V, regarding pupillage, by
Jean Graham Hall (pro) and Francis Miller (con). Having recently completed my
pupillage logbook (awaiting interview), I feel that I am qualified to render an
opinion. I first registered for pupillage on obtaining my Fellowship in 1995. I
arranged pupillage with two Arbitrators who regrettably died before
commencement and I reverted to reliance on the CIArb register. In late 1997, I
was contacted by an Arbitrator who had been given my name by CIArb and was
involved with a long-running reference which was about to go to a six-week
hearing. He had contacted several other prospective pupils who declined. I
attended two days of the hearing, incorporating the entire evidence of two
experts. I derived alternative proposals to CIArb as it was clearly impossible
to write an award but CIArb were inflexible. Although that hearing was useless
for logbook purposes, it was invaluable to my development.
Subsequently, the CIArb introduced a one-day course of a mock
Arbitration from which the Pupil would write an award and satisfy the logbook
requirements. Although instructive, the mock hearing was no substitute for the
real thing.
I registered with a separate Pupil Master for the “documents-only” award
and found that he had experienced several pupils who had not continued and
returned awards.
Having completed those parts of the logbook which appeared to be most
difficult, the major problem remaining was attendance on a course for
“taxation”, which was at last held by CIArb.
While waiting for this course, I attended further hearings and wrote
further draft awards.
Before I attended the induction course in 1987, I was confident that I
could act as Arbitrator. Since then, at
every stage (including attaining a law degree and reading for the bar), I find
the volume of “things to be learnt” grows at a faster rate than the knowledge
and experience gained. The most useful parts of my pupillage have been
attendance at hearings and court. The
gain by such attendance as an observer rather than a player cannot be
overrated, pupillage is the only opportunity for such attendance at Arbitral
hearings and the requirement should be increased rather than reduced.
The deficiencies in the system, such as the two-day hearing with award
and the non-availability of set courses appear to have been addressed by the
CIArb but it still appears that potential Arbitrators are not taking up the
opportunities which are available. I find it hard to believe that a potential
Arbitrator who seriously wants to practice as an Arbitrator would not want to
extend rather than reduce the opportunities afforded by pupillage.
It would, in my opinion, be an act of gross negligence for CIArb (or
anyone else) to appoint or nominate an Arbitrator who had not been through the
full rigours of training, including pupillage.