Skip to main content
Article
IS THREE A CROWD?: NEUTRALITY, PARTIALITY AND PARTISANSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF TRIPARTITE ARBITRATIONS
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal (2009)
  • Sean-Patrick Wilson
  • David J. McLean
Abstract
Despite the widespread usage of party-appointed tripartite arbitration, for some time there has been confusion and concern among academics, courts, parties and arbitrators about the proper role of neutrality in tripartite structure. For example, is it legally permissible for party-appointed arbitrators to be partial? What difference, if any, exists between terms such as “partial,” “partisan” and “non-neutral”? How do we reconcile the Federal Arbitration Act’s ban on “evident partiality” with the concept of having non-neutral arbitrators? Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has delineated fully the concept of neutrality of party-appointed arbitrators, and the case law among the circuit and trial courts sometimes has been less than clear. This paper discusses issues surrounding party-appointed arbitrators on tripartite panels, and attempts to offer practical observations about what parties can expect under the tripartite system.
Keywords
  • arbitration,
  • alternative dispute resolution,
  • tripartite panels
Disciplines
Publication Date
Winter 2009
Citation Information
9 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L. J. 167