Abstract Arbitral secretaries, once confined to clerical duties, now often assist with legal research and award preparation raising acute questions about the non-delegation doctrine and the integrity of awards. This article examines that evolution through a three-pillar approach: (i) doctrinal analysis of intuitu personae and the limits on delegation; (ii) a targeted review of leading decisions addressing secretarial involvement; and (iii) a comparative appraisal of six institutional frameworks (ICC, ICSID, LCIA, HKIAC, CIArb, ASA). Synthesizing these sources, the study distils a ‘disclosure–impact–consent’ standard: an award is vulnerable only where undisclosed secretarial involvement penetrates the tribunal's core deliberative or decisional functions without informed party consent. The analysis also maps converging red lines across rules and courts no delegation of decision-making, ring-fenced deliberations, transparency about identity and tasks, and arbitrators’ retained ‘personal intellectual responsibility’. Properly supervised secretaries emerge as force-multipliers rather than ‘fourth arbitrators’. Practically, the article distils this into a short ‘disclosure–impact–consent’ checklist that arbitrators can apply to define tasks, record supervision, and document informed consent, thereby minimizing due process objections and enforceability risk while preserving efficiency.
Tariq K. Alhasan (Sat,) studied this question.