Opinion ID: 2169455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Improper Interest and the Disclosure Thereof

Text: A party-appointed arbitrator is not a judge; as such, we have held that it would be inappropriate to require the party-appointed arbitrator to adhere to the same standards of neutrality as a judge. That standard ignores the practical realities of arbitration panels composed of party-appointed arbitrators. Grabbert, 590 A.2d at 92. In Grabbert, we recognize[d] that evident partiality is an elusive concept for which no one has been able to articulate a precise legal standard. Id. at 96. However, [m]ost courts that have addressed the issue have decided that a finding of evident partiality requires a showing of more than an appearance of bias but less than actual bias. Id. We then articulated a standard, stating that evident partiality is established where `a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration.' Id.; see also V.S. Haseotes & Sons, L.P., 819 A.2d at 1285. When deciding Grabbert, we took into consideration the Code of Ethics as it stood at the time. Grabbert, 590 A.2d at 93. The Code of Ethics was updated most recently in 2004, and makes the following provisions for party-appointed arbitrators: [Party-appointed arbitrators] should disclose to all parties, and to the other arbitrators, all interests and relationships which Canon II requires be disclosed. Disclosure as required by Canon II is for the benefit not only of the party who appointed the arbitrator, but also for the benefit of the other parties and arbitrators so that they may know of any partiality which may exist or appear to exist. Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, Canon X(B)(1). Taking into account both the revised Code of Ethics and the sensitive nature of the attorney-client relationship, the Pawtucket arbitrator should have disclosed his position to the opposing party and the other two arbitrators. However, under Grabbert, the analysis does not end here; therefore, we continue to the next step of determining whether the subject relationship has a causal link to the amount of the arbitration award. Only if such a link is found will we vacate the arbitration award pursuant to § 10-3-12. 2