What is the current state of the law on disclosure for arbitrators?

While noting the roles of arbitrators may differ in some respects from the duties of judges, the court rejected the contention that the rules for disclosure for arbitrators should be broader than those governing recusal of judicial officers. (Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 392-393.) The court went on to caution that an arbitrator "cannot reasonably be expected to identify and disclose all events in the arbitrator's past, including those not connected to the parties, the facts, or the issues in controversy, that conceivably might cause a party to prefer another arbitrator. Such a broad interpretation of the appearance-of-partiality rule could subject arbitration awards to after-the-fact attacks by losing parties searching for potential disqualifying information only after an adverse decision has been made. (Remmey v. PaineWebber, Inc. [(1994)] 32 F.3d [143,] 148 ['If this challenge were sustained, nothing would stop future parties to arbitration from obtaining allegedly disqualifying information, going through with the proceedings, and then coming forward with the information only if disappointed by the decision.'].) Such a result would undermine the finality of arbitrations without contributing to the fairness of arbitration proceedings." (Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 394-395.)