Court Opinion

ID: 9617980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:04:53.682949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:21.630064
License: Public Domain

*262SCHNEIDER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would hold the ex parte contact between the arbitrator and counsel for IPCO was not only improper, but was sufficient to call into question the validity of the arbitration award, and consequently required the trial court to vacate the award. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
Although Texas law favors arbitration, it even more strongly favors impartial proceedings, and strongly disfavors proceedings which appear one-sided. See U.S. Government v. Marks, 949 S.W.2d 320, 325 (Tex.1997). As noted by the majority, ex parte communications between judges and counsel are prohibited by our codes of professional conduct in the strongest terms. Tex.Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(B)(8), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. tit. 2, subtit. G app. B (Vernon Supp.2001); Tex. DISCIPLINARY R. Prof’l Conduct 3.05(b), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. tit. 2, subtit. G app. A (Vernon 1998).
While the majority acknowledges the impropriety of the ex parte contact in question, it does not go far enough to discourage such conduct. Whether construed as “undue means” under the Texas Arbitration Act,1 or “misconduct” under the Texas common law,2 an ex parte communication between an arbitrator and counsel for one party creates an air of impropriety which taints the entire proceeding, and, in my opinion, not only justifies but requires a trial court to vacate an arbitration award, so as to ensure the integrity of the individual proceeding before it and of the entire judicial process. Courts of appeals should not engage in a “harmless error” review of such conduct in an attempt to assess its impact on the proceedings conducted below.
Accordingly, I would grant IPCO’s first issue and would hold the trial court abused its discretion in deciding not to vacate the arbitration award.

. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 171.088(a)(1) (Vernon Supp.2001).

. See Teleometrics Int'l, Inc. v. Hall, 922 S.W.2d 189, 193 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).