The importance of ethical conduct by lawyers, arbitrators and other stakeholders in preserving the credibility of arbitration was the focus of a panel discussion on “Ethics in Arbitration: Lawyers’ and Arbitrators’ Ethics”, organised as part of the LCIA × Arbitral Women event on October 31, 2026, at the Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bengaluru.
Chaired by Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court, the session featured Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Lomesh Kiran Nidumuri, Partner and Head – Disputes (South India), Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas; and Ms. Manini Brar, Founder, Arbridge Chambers & Solicitors and Board Member of Arbitral Women.
In her opening remarks, Justice Sivaraman emphasised that the integrity of arbitration depends on the conduct of every stakeholder involved in the process. She observed that parties opting for arbitration forego certain procedural protections traditionally available in court proceedings, including the possibility of re-examination on facts and contractual interpretation. This, she noted, makes it particularly important to preserve the fairness and integrity of arbitral proceedings.
Referring to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, including Section 12 and its Schedules, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest and institutional rules such as those of the LCIA, Justice Sivaraman highlighted that the effectiveness of these frameworks ultimately depends on stakeholders honouring both their letter and spirit. She stressed that the arbitration system functions on trust, which must be earned through the conduct of everyone involved.
Dr. Aditya Sondhi examined the ethical expectations governing lawyers in court proceedings and arbitration, questioning whether the standards applicable in arbitration should be higher than those prescribed for courtroom advocacy. He observed that while advocates are governed by the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India Rules, institutional arbitration rules, including those of the LCIA, often impose additional expectations concerning confidentiality, non-obstruction and professional conduct.
He pointed out that arbitration presents distinct challenges because proceedings are generally private and confidential, unlike open court hearings where the conduct of counsel is subject to scrutiny by the Bench, the Bar and the public. He raised the question of whether greater transparency, including the publication of arbitral awards dealing with issues of professional conduct, could help strengthen accountability.
Dr. Sondhi also drew attention to ethical challenges in international arbitration, where lawyers from different jurisdictions may be governed by varying professional standards. Referring to the concept of double deontology, he argued that lawyers must maintain a consistent standard of ethical conduct regardless of the jurisdiction or forum in which they appear. He further emphasised that the standards prescribed under the Bar Council Rules should be treated as the minimum threshold, rather than the ceiling, for professional conduct in arbitration.
On arbitrator independence, he discussed the statutory disclosure requirements under Section 12 and the Schedules to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, while also expressing concern over the practice of party-nominated arbitrators. He cautioned that repeated appointments by the same parties or law firms could create perceptions that arbitrators are aligned with the interests of those appointing them, thereby undermining confidence in the process.
Mr. Lomesh Kiran Nidumuri focused on practical ethical challenges arising in arbitration, emphasising that the test of an arbitrator’s conduct must also be assessed from the perspective of the parties and whether they can reasonably retain confidence in the arbitrator’s ability to reach a fair and impartial decision.
Referring to a recent Delhi High Court judgment concerning an arbitrator’s appointment in 4,155 arbitrations, he highlighted the importance of disclosures and the need to avoid practices that may compromise confidence in arbitral proceedings.
Turning to the responsibilities of counsel,Lomesh Nidumuri observed that lawyers must exercise restraint in placing material before tribunals and avoid burdening them with voluminous records that are not relevant to the issues in dispute. He also questioned whether counsel should be under an express obligation to place before the tribunal judgments that may operate against their case, noting that selective reliance on favourable authorities can distort the legal position.
He further highlighted ethical concerns surrounding the withholding of relevant evidence, the use of artificial intelligence in preparing legal submissions, and the disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. On the conduct of arbitrators, he cautioned that even well-intentioned actions, such as engaging with parties on settlement possibilities or informal interactions with one side, may create perceptions of bias. He advocated timely and comprehensive disclosures, observing that transparency at the outset can prevent challenges and protect the legitimacy of proceedings.
Ms. Manini Brar brought an international institutional perspective to the discussion, drawing on her experience with the International Chamber of Commerce and as a tribunal secretary under the SIAC Rules. She explained the role of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, particularly the green, orange and red lists, in identifying circumstances that may require disclosure by arbitrators.
She clarified that the obligation to disclose and the standard for disqualification are distinct. While disclosure enables parties and institutions to assess potential conflicts, non-disclosure by itself does not automatically establish bias or justify an arbitrator’s removal. The assessment, she explained, must take into account the circumstances of the conflict and whether they give rise to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality.
Manini also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the role played by arbitral institutions as gatekeepers of the process. Referring to the LCIA’s publication of redacted challenge decisions, she noted that institutional transparency provides valuable insight into how challenges to arbitrators are assessed internationally. She observed that an adverse procedural ruling, by itself, does not establish bias; the arbitrator’s conduct, particularly in responding to a challenge, may also be relevant.
Emphasising the responsibilities of counsel, she noted that parties should raise potential conflicts at the appropriate stage rather than withholding information that could affect the constitution of the tribunal. She outlined several practical safeguards, including early and full disclosures, due diligence concerning all parties and related entities, continuing disclosure obligations, avoidance of ex parte communications and ensuring that arbitrators retain personal responsibility for their decisions rather than delegating the decision-making function to tribunal secretaries.