## Facts

- Two Italian parties entered a construction-related contract containing an arbitration clause governed by Italian law.
- The clause called for formal arbitration, requiring the tribunal to decide according to law.
- The appointed arbitrators were construction technical experts and were not legally trained.
- The arbitrators engaged an attorney as a legal expert to assist with legal aspects and to draft the award’s text.
- An award was rendered in favor of Robotto.
- Sacheri sought annulment before the Genoa Court of Appeal, arguing the arbitrators improperly delegated their decision-making role to the attorney.
- The Genoa Court of Appeal rejected the challenge; Sacheri appealed to the Italian Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether arbitrators may rely extensively on a lawyer-expert to draft a law-based award without unlawfully delegating their adjudicatory function.
2. Whether heavy reliance on a legal expert, given the arbitrators’ lack of legal training, justified annulment on the ground that the arbitrators relinquished their mandate.
3. What showing is required to establish impermissible substitution of an expert for the arbitrators in deliberation and decision.

## Decision

- The Italian Supreme Court affirmed the Genoa Court of Appeal and upheld the award.
- The Court rejected annulment based on the arbitrators’ use of a lawyer-expert to assist in drafting.
- The Court treated the assistance as permissible because the arbitrators were deemed to have adopted the award as their own, and improper delegation was not established.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitrators may obtain external legal assistance, including substantial drafting assistance, so long as they retain and exercise the core decision-making function.
- In a law-based arbitration, arbitrators’ lack of legal training does not by itself invalidate an award when legal input is used as assistance rather than as a substitute for deliberation and decision.
- Annulment for delegation requires concrete proof that the expert replaced the arbitrators in deciding the dispute, not merely that the expert drafted the reasoning.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a law-based arbitral award despite extensive attorney-expert involvement in drafting, holding that annulment is unwarranted absent proof that the arbitrators ceded their adjudicatory role and failed to adopt the decision as their own.


Sacheri v. Robotto, Case No. 2765 (Cass. 1989), reprinted in 16 Y.B. Com. Arb. 156 (1991)