Reasonably Entertaining A Doubt About Impartiality?

I usually do not post about Superior Court cases. However, after taking off time in August to, among other things, hike in the San Juan Islands, I read upon my return about Hall v. Elden Investments, LLC, LA County Superior Court Case No. 26STCP01203. It’s an interesting case deserving attention.

Hall received a favorable award from a San Diego arbitrator, requiring the return to Hall of a $132,265 deposit due as a result of a breached real estate purchase agreement, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Hall moved as Petitioner to confirm the award in LA County Superior Court. However, the judge denied the petition to confirm, and granted a cross-petition to vacate the award instead.

Why? The arbitrator had not disclosed her participation in a webinar sponsored by Petitioner’s law firm, after issuing an interim award, but before a final award. The judge described the webinar as a “firm-sponsored firm-branded event” burnishing the reputation of the arbitrator and the law firm. Concluding that the issue was not whether there was actual bias, but rather whether a reasonable person could entertain doubts about the arbitrator’s impartiality in the case, the judge vacated the award.

COMMENT: Without expressing an opinion about the correctness of the decision, I note that arbitrators, mediators, and attorneys routinely participate in educational webinars sponsored by law firms. Also, large law firms are often MCLE providers, and therefore frequently sponsor such webinars. Participants are most likely to participate with others with whom they have professional and organizational relationships. If judicial treatment of such webinars as “firm-branded firm-sponsored events” requires disclosures, participants will need to keep conflict checks and disclosures in mind, and some participants will find themselves unable to participate.