A bankruptcy proceeding is a mandatory legal process whereby the state (or appointed stateûs trustee) steps in with the goal to control and manage the insolventsû estates and outstanding debts in a timely manner. To achieve this goal, certain legal restrictions/actions are taken against the insolventsû rights and freedoms to their estates. Contrarily, an arbitral proceeding is an alternative dispute resolution procedure in which all relevant partiesû consents are required and the process to the hearing and written proceedings can be pursued only by maintaining such continuous agreements of the relevant parties. Consequently, the stateûs interference in the arbitral proceeding is comparatively restricted and can only be done in limited circumstances, if any is allowed at all. Questions often arise when the mandatoryé nature of the bankruptcy process crashes with the consensusé nature of the arbitral process, especially when one concerning party in the arbitral process has declared bankruptcy. The purpose of this article aims to answer the question whether persons who had formerly declared bankruptcy in the past can legally serve as arbitrators in arbitral proceedings in the future or not. The article takes domestic laws (Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 and Arbitration Act B.E. 2545), international laws (the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) or the New York Convention, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) and IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014)), and the Arbitration Rules of several Thai arbitration institutions into consideration as well as comparing them against academic opinions. The study found that there are no legal grounds prohibiting discharged persons from bankruptcy proceedings from performing their duties as arbitrators. Nonetheless, even after the persons have been discharged from bankruptcy claims, the sentiment to continue to punish and penalize the discharged persons exists in the Thai society. As a result of this negative perception that lingers against discharged persons, the author views that being discharged persons or having been involved in bankruptcy proceedings could be viewed as impacting the impartial and independenceé status required in performing the duties of arbitrators. With that said, the discharged persons should clearly mention and define their financial statuses to all concerning parties upon their nominations as assume their roles as arbitrators. In this respect, the relevant parties will be able to evaluate potential conflicts and whether the persons are fit to serve as their impartial and independenceé arbitrators.