Rarely pre-pandemic would parties have contemplated engaging in a virtual arbitration. The question arises whether an arbitrator can order a virtual arbitration to take place over a party's objection, whether it is for the best or worst of reasons. The answer lies in the rules of the governing arbitration forum. See "Can and Should Arbitrators Compel Parties to Participate in Remote Arbitration Hearings?" Theodore K. Cheng, LEXIS/NEXIS.com Practical Guidance, Aug. 24, 2020; see, e.g., Legaspy v. FINRA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145735 at * 7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2020) (court denied injunction against FINRA from holding a virtual hearing where "FINRA Rule 12409 gives 'the panel … the authority to interpret and determine the applicability of all provisions under the Code … .'. The panel did precisely that, concluding that the 'location' for its hearing under Rule 12213(a) will be remote. Even on the court's independent review, Rule 12213(a) appears to permit such an interpretation. That rule provides 'The Director will decide which of FINRA's hearing locations will be the hearing location for the arbitration.' Rule 12213(a)(1). Here, the Director decided to make 'virtual hearing services (via Zoom and teleconference)' available 'to parties in all cases by joint agreement or by panel order.'").

Of course, the risk of convincing an arbitrator to order a virtual arbitration hearing over objection is that the award may be subject to vacatur by a court under CPLR or the Federal Arbitration Act. See, e.g., Weirton Med. Ctr. v. Cmty. Health Sys., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203725 at *12 (N.D. W.Va. Dec. 12, 2017) (arbitrator's determination that summary disposition was appropriate had a reasonable basis in the parties' agreements and did not exceed his powers in disposing of the arbitration on summary disposition); Lancer Ins. Co. v. Tolling Mfrs. Ins. Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10880 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 1990) (party seeking to vacate the award because the panel failed to hold an oral hearing did not constitute sufficient grounds for vacatur, noting that "[u]nless the parties have committed themselves by contract for oral hearings in the conduct of the arbitration, such procedural matters are committed to the discretion of the arbitrators."); Lunsford v. RBC Dain Rauscher, 590 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1157 (D. Minn. 2008) ("[T]the arbitration agreement gave the Panel the ultimate authority to determine the location of the evidentiary hearing and plaintiffs were not prejudiced by testifying telephonically … . Therefore, the Panel's decision to conduct a telephonic hearing does not require vacation of the arbitration award.").