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.'").