Is there a difference between an arbitrator and a lawyer in arbitration? (1) Different qualifications. The qualification of an arbitrator shall comply with the provisions of Article 13 of the Arbitration Law; To qualify as a lawyer, you must pass the annual national lawyer qualification examination. (2) The nature of handling cases is different. The arbitrator's handling of the case is arbitral and does not represent any party; A lawyer is an agent handling a case and represents the rights and interests of the client. (3) Arbitrators are bound by the challenge system and cannot meet the parties in private, nor can they express any opinions to the parties on the case; Lawyers are not bound by the challenge system, they can discuss the case with the client, represent the rights and interests of the client, make suggestions and try to defend the client in court. (4) The arbitrator shall handle the case according to the arbitration rules and procedures. If the parties have opinions and demands, they shall convey them to the arbitrator in writing through the case recorder; Lawyers represent clients according to their wishes and exchange opinions with clients at any time, without the need for a third party to forward them. What is an arbitrator? An arbitrator refers to an intermediate referee who judges and makes a ruling on the disputes over the property rights and interests of the parties in an arbitration case. From the perspective of hearing disputes and making decisions, arbitrators and judges are very similar. But there are essential differences between the two. Judges are national public officials appointed by the national legislature and working in people's courts at all levels, while arbitrators are not a special profession. He may be a businessman, professor, accountant, technical expert and so on. [1] From the source of jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of judges comes from the judicial power of the state, while the jurisdiction of arbitrators only comes from the authorization of the parties in the arbitration agreement. Beyond the scope of authorization, the arbitrator has no right to exercise jurisdiction. What is a lawyer? A lawyer refers to a practitioner who has passed the national judicial examination, obtained a lawyer's practice certificate according to law, accepted entrustment or assignment, and provided legal services to the parties. It can be seen that there is a certain difference between arbitrators and lawyers. If we encounter a civil dispute in our life, we should turn to the arbitrator first. If the arbitrator can't solve it, we need a lawyer to protect your legitimate rights and interests. If your situation is complicated, the website also provides online consultation service for lawyers, and you are welcome to have legal consultation.

Legal objectivity:

There are different provisions on the qualification of arbitrators in the legislation of various countries in the world. Some countries have made strict regulations on the qualification of arbitrators, such as China, Taiwan Province Province, South Korea and Italy. , and also stipulates some situations in which arbitrators may not be appointed; However, most countries have loose regulations, such as Germany and Japan. Generally speaking, these countries can be arbitrators as long as they are capable, virtuous and impartial natural persons. There are still a few countries that have not clearly defined the qualifications of arbitrators. For example, the British Arbitration Law 1996 has no statutory restrictions on the persons employed as arbitrators. Article 13 of China's arbitration law 1994 stipulates the qualification of arbitrators as follows: the arbitration commission shall appoint arbitrators from fair and upright personnel. Rights of Arbitrators The China Arbitration Law is not clear about the rights of arbitrators, and gives some rights that should belong to the arbitration tribunal to the arbitration commission. This is not only not conducive to the arbitrator's impartial, independent, serious and responsible trial of the case, but also can not better reflect the principle of party autonomy, and the role of the arbitration tribunal can not be fully played. This dislocation of authority is mainly reflected in the following aspects: First, Article 20 1 of China's Arbitration Law stipulates: "If a party disagrees with the validity of the arbitration agreement, it may request the arbitration commission to make a decision or the people's court to make a decision." This provision clearly gives the arbitration commission, not the arbitration tribunal, the right to confirm arbitration jurisdiction, which runs counter to the internationally accepted principle of "self-adjudication jurisdiction". Moreover, it is obviously illogical for an arbitration institution to make a decision on the existence of an arbitration agreement without any authorization from the parties. Secondly, Article 52 of China's Arbitration Law stipulates that "the conciliation statement shall be signed by the arbitrator and sealed by the Arbitration Commission" and Article 54 stipulates that "the award shall be signed by the arbitrator and sealed by the Arbitration Commission". These two provisions show that the arbitration tribunal and the arbitration commission jointly exercise the power of adjudication and mediation in arbitration cases. It is absurd that the arbitration commission does not participate in the substantive trial of the case, but strictly abides by the final stage of the trial. Moreover, the parties only selected arbitrators to hear the case, and did not authorize the arbitration commission to verify it. This practice of the arbitration commission is inevitably suspected of exceeding its authority; Thirdly, there are few provisions in China's arbitration law that arbitrators have the right to arrange arbitration procedures, while the arbitration commission has arranged all arbitration procedures, and many links are subject to arbitration institutions, which makes the arbitration tribunal have to be in a passive position, which is not conducive to the trial of arbitration cases. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the rights of the arbitration tribunal and arbitrators, give the arbitration tribunal "self-adjudication jurisdiction" and change the practice of affixing the seal of the arbitration commission to the arbitration award and conciliation statement. Before the formation of the arbitration tribunal, the relevant procedural issues shall be arranged by the arbitration institution. Once the arbitration tribunal is established and the case is referred to it, all matters related to the arbitration procedure, including the time and place of the hearing, the language used and the time limit for the parties to submit evidence materials, shall be decided by the arbitration tribunal. At this time, the arbitration institution should only exercise its macro-management function. In addition, the author believes that China's arbitration legislation should also give the arbitral tribunal the right to take interim measures of protection. According to China's laws, only the court has the right to take property preservation measures, but the provisions on property preservation in China's arbitration cannot be operated. Article 17 of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which embodies the basic spirit and trend of modern international commercial arbitration, has clearly given the arbitral tribunal the power to take protective measures. In order to maintain the authority of arbitration and avoid the disconnection between China arbitration and international arbitration, it is necessary for us to modify the arbitration preservation system. Liability of Arbitrators Article 38 of China's Arbitration Law stipulates two situations in which arbitrators should bear legal liability, but it does not stipulate what responsibilities arbitrators should bear. This rough rule increases the difficulty of judicial execution. The author thinks it is necessary to improve the arbitrator's liability system in China. First of all, there is no doubt that the arbitrator should bear the responsibility. From the point of view of rights restriction and the requirement of consistency of rights and obligations, it is necessary to stipulate the responsibility of arbitrators. As for the scope of responsibility of arbitrators, the author tends to "limited liability theory", that is, arbitrators can enjoy liability immunity to a certain extent. The arbitrator's behavior in the process of performing quasi-judicial duties shall be exempted, but the arbitrator shall still bear the responsibility of intentional or gross negligence. Should an arbitrator bear administrative, criminal or civil responsibilities? The arbitration commission is a legal person of a non-governmental organization, not a state administrative organ. The arbitrator is a person who executes the judgment in his own name, not a staff member of a state organ, and not a relative person in the administrative legal relationship. Therefore, the arbitrator shall bear civil liability. So how should the arbitrator bear this "limited" civil liability? The author believes that the civil liability of arbitrators should be properly restricted. If an arbitrator's illegal act has not caused actual losses to the parties, his civil liability shall be limited to the return of the arbitration fee. If the award or payment is delayed due to his behavior, the civil liability he shall bear shall be the reasonable interest loss of the money involved. If an arbitrator's illegal act causes other economic losses to the parties, he shall be compensated separately, but the amount of compensation shall not exceed a certain amount. In addition, the arbitrator's illegal act is to ask for bribes, and the money and goods he asks for should be returned to the parties; Those who accept bribes shall have their money and materials confiscated by the relevant state organs. The author also thinks that the scope of arbitrator's responsibility stipulated in China's arbitration law is too narrow, which is not conducive to the protection of the rights of the parties. I suggest adding two items: First, the arbitrator deliberately violated the confidentiality obligation and leaked the case; Second, the arbitrator should finish the arbitration task in time, if he can't finish the arbitration task on time. Arbitrators should bear legal responsibility. There is a famous saying in the arbitration field that "the whole value of arbitration lies in the arbitrator". In view of the role of arbitrators in the arbitration process, there will never be a satisfactory arbitration system if there are no arbitrators who satisfy the parties. Based on the important position of the arbitrator system in the whole arbitration legal system, China arbitration theorists and practitioners should take seriously all kinds of legal problems surrounding arbitrators in arbitration practice, seek regular countermeasures and solutions, make necessary amendments to laws and relevant rules, and establish a set of arbitrator system in line with international standards as soon as possible.