Can the same person be both mediator and arbitrator in an Israeli dispute?

Combining the two roles is attractive because it saves time and cost: the neutral already knows the dispute, so if mediation stalls the matter can move straight to a binding decision without educating a new tribunal. Israeli practice recognizes this hybrid, and nothing in the Arbitration Law forbids it. The tension lies in the different natures of the two processes. A mediator meets each side privately in caucuses and is told things in confidence precisely because those disclosures cannot be used against the party. An arbitrator, by contrast, must decide only on the record and treat both sides with procedural equality. When one person carries confidences from the mediation into the arbitration, a losing party can argue the arbitrator was influenced by material the other side never had the chance to answer, which touches the rules of natural justice and the arbitrator's duty of impartiality.

That risk is manageable but must be addressed before the neutral switches hats. Section 24 of the Arbitration Law lists the narrow grounds on which a court can set an award aside, and a serious breach of due process or a failure to act fairly falls within them, so an award produced by an ill-managed med-arb is vulnerable. The safeguards are practical. The parties should give explicit, documented consent to the same person acting in both capacities and, ideally, waive any objection based on what was shared during mediation. Where genuinely sensitive confidences were exchanged in caucus, the cleaner course is to appoint a separate arbitrator. A well-drafted dispute-resolution clause can set the med-arb sequence out in advance, which is far safer than improvising the switch once negotiations break down.

From the full guide: Commercial Mediation in Israel: A Step-by-Step Guide

← Browse all Q&A