Arbitrator or Private Investigator: Should the Arbitrator's Duty to Disclose Include a Duty to Investigate - Abudullah E. Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A. and Citibank, A.S.

Authors

R. Travis Jacobs

Abstract

Arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution are replacing courtroom litigation as a means of resolving problems because they are less time consuming, less expensive and promote a friendlier atmosphere. In the case of arbitration, if people are to continue to use arbitration and give arbitrator's decisions credibility, there must be faith that the arbitrator is fair. There must also be a channel to challenge the arbitrator's decision if it was not reached in a fair manner.' This channel is provided statutorily by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) which allows a decision to be reversed if the arbitrator displayed partiality to one side or the other in the dispute.' The Supreme Court held that before the arbitration an arbitrator has a duty to disclose any facts which would appear to make him or her biased.4 This Casenote will discuss whether the duty to disclose should also carry with it a duty to investigate for any facts that may cause the arbitrator to appear biased.

Recommended Citation

R. Travis Jacobs, Arbitrator or Private Investigator: Should the Arbitrator's Duty to Disclose Include a Duty to Investigate - Abudullah E. Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A. and Citibank, A.S., 1997 J. Disp. Resol. (1997)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1997/iss1/7