New Connecticut Statute Promises Significant Change to Arbitrator Selection Process

Effective July 1, 2026, Connecticut Public Act 26-92 requires arbitrators in private arbitrations conducted in Connecticut to be Connecticut-admitted attorneys in good standing. Importantly, the statute appears to apply not only to newly-filed arbitrations, but also to pending matters in which an evidentiary hearing had not commenced before July 1. The Act aligns with previous Connecticut regulations requiring admission to the state bar in order to appear in administrative proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Commission, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, and other state administrative agencies.

Under the Act when an “agreement to arbitrate includes the method for selecting an arbitrator for an arbitration proceeding to be conducted in this state,” the arbitrator must be admitted – and a member in good standing – at the time of their appointment and throughout the duration of the proceeding.

The Act’s Language is Not Entirely Clear on Several Points

The language of the Act raises several questions which, as of now, remain unanswered. The first is whether the Act is intended to apply in the context of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Many such agreements contain grievance procedures that include arbitration should the parties be unable to resolve a grievance internally. Whether the statute applies to labor arbitrations arising under CBAs remains an open question. Early indications from the American Arbitration Association (AAA), which many CBAs designate to administer arbitrations, suggest it may administer such matters consistent with the statute, but as the statute is new, no Connecticut court has had an opportunity to address the issue. Insofar as the statute impacts CBAs, there may also be a question of preemption by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). However this, too, is a question that remains unanswered in the statute’s early days.

The next question concerns the location of the arbitration. If the agreement to arbitrate specifies that the arbitration will take place in Connecticut, the statute clearly applies. If the agreement states a hearing must take place within a certain distance of the place of employment and that location is in Connecticut, it probably applies. However, many arbitrations are now taking place virtually, and the Act does not address whether arbitrations occurring virtually are “conducted in this state” for the purposes of this requirement. For arbitrations involving parties and witnesses from multiple states, an argument may be made that the Act’s requirements do not apply because the arbitration is not “conducted” in Connecticut, However, it is too early to tell if such an argument would be successful. And for virtual arbitrations where all participants work or reside in Connecticut, there is risk that, if challenged, courts would find the bar membership requirement applies, even if the arbitrator is located in another state.

Interplay with the Federal Arbitration Act

Whenever a state statute changes arbitrator-selection requirements, it raises the question whether those requirements could be challenged as being preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), particularly when agreements specify a particular selection mechanism or allow for the selection of arbitrators from a nationwide roster.

Parties to arbitration agreements may consider whether, in particular circumstances, application of the statute conflicts with the FAA or with contractual arbitrator-selection procedures. Again, because the statute is new, courts have not yet addressed these issues.

Parties Can Waive This Requirement

The Act permits parties to waive the bar membership requirement. However, an agreement to waive that requirement must be joint and made in writing. Unilateral and/or oral agreements to waive the requirement will not be sufficient.

Tight Deadlines to Object

The Act gives parties 14 days from the arbitrator’s appointment to object if the arbitrator does not satisfy the bar membership requirement. If an arbitrator falls out of good standing with the state bar during the arbitration, a party has 14 days from actual notice to object to the arbitrator’s continued involvement. The Act does not contemplate extensions to either of these deadlines. For arbitrations that were pending when the Act took effect and in which the evidentiary hearing has not yet commenced, parties had until July 15, 2026 – 14 days from the effective date – to object to the selected arbitrator’s failure to satisfy this requirement.

The statute does not speak to the impact of a party’s failure to object within the 14-day window for doing so, but the implication is that failure to timely object to an arbitrator’s appointment would preclude a party from later challenging the arbitration award on the grounds the arbitrator was not qualified under this statute. However, that will remain a question to potentially be resolved by Connecticut courts.

Several major ADR companies are already proactively addressing the Act’s requirements. JAMS and the AAA have both affirmatively raised the Act in pending or newly-opened matters and indicated to parties that they will provide panels consisting only of arbitrators who meet the membership requirement in matters involving civil claims as well as labor grievances.

Practical Ramifications Moving Forward

The Act could have considerable impact on arbitration matters moving forward. To the extent agencies such as JAMS and AAA will affirmatively exclude arbitrators from panels this may, in effect, narrow the available pool of arbitrators or otherwise limit access to arbitrators previously available through the rosters of national providers.

Moving forward, an employer may want to consider the following action items:

• Review pending Connecticut arbitrations immediately.
• Confirm the selected arbitrator is admitted and in good standing in Connecticut.
• Evaluate whether a written waiver is desirable.
• Review arbitration clauses that designate Connecticut as the arbitral location.
• For unionized employers, assess whether discussions regarding waiver language are warranted.

As always, Littler is available to assist to help employers evaluate existing arbitration agreements and navigate the potential impact of Connecticut’s new arbitrator-qualification requirements.