If counsel discover evidence of possible arbitrator BIAS, it's best to raise the issue early, unlike the plaintiff did in Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works. “After the arbitrator is selected by the forum or the parties, there is a real Catch-22 involved with raising any issues of nondisclosure or partiality,” according to Liz Kramer, a shareholder at Leonard, Street and Deinard and author of the “Arbitration Nation” blog.  

A party who discovers evidence of bias but fails to object promptly could find it difficult to make an argument for evident partiality later in the proceedings. On the other hand, if counsel accuses an arbitrator of bias during the proceedings, and the arbitral forum—such as the American Arbitration Association—opts not to disqualify that adjudicator, the party must proceed with what is likely to be an unhappy arbitrator.

If counsel discover evidence of possible arbitrator BIAS, it's best to raise the issue early, unlike the plaintiff did in Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works. “After the arbitrator is selected by the forum or the parties, there is a real Catch-22 involved with raising any issues of nondisclosure or partiality,” according to Liz Kramer, a shareholder at Leonard, Street and Deinard and author of the “Arbitration Nation” blog.  

A party who discovers evidence of bias but fails to object promptly could find it difficult to make an argument for evident partiality later in the proceedings. On the other hand, if counsel accuses an arbitrator of bias during the proceedings, and the arbitral forum—such as the American Arbitration Association—opts not to disqualify that adjudicator, the party must proceed with what is likely to be an unhappy arbitrator.