An arbitrator shall uphold the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process

As amended through June 18, 2024

A. Fair and just processes for resolving disputes are indispensable in our society. Arbitration is an important method for deciding many types of disputes. For arbitration to be effective, there must be broad public confidence in and understanding of the integrity and fairness of the process. Therefore, an arbitrator has a responsibility not only to the parties but also to the courts, the public and the process of arbitration itself and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and fairness of the process will be preserved. Accordingly, an arbitrator has a responsibility to the public, parties whose rights will be decided, the courts, and other participants in the proceeding. These Canons shall be construed and applied to further these objectives.

B. It may be inconsistent with the integrity of the arbitration process for persons to solicit appointment for themselves. However, persons may indicate a general willingness to serve as arbitrators, e.g., by listing themselves with institutions that sponsor arbitration, or with courts that have court-annexed arbitration programs. Arbitrators may advertise, consistent with the law.

C. Persons may accept appointment as arbitrators only if they believe that they can be available to conduct the arbitration promptly. They shall exercise judgment whether their skills or expertise are sufficient to support demands of the arbitration and, if these skills or expertise are not sufficient, they shall decline to serve or withdraw from the arbitration, with the court's approval in court-administered arbitration, and notice to the parties.

D. After accepting appointment and while serving as an arbitrator, a person shall avoid entering into any financial, business, professional, family or social relationship, or acquiring any financial or personal interest likely to affect impartiality or which might reasonably create the appearance of partiality or bias. For one year after decision of a case, persons who have served as arbitrators shall avoid entering into any such relationship, or acquiring any such interest, in the circumstances which might reasonably create the appearance that they had been influenced in the arbitration by the anticipation or expectation of the relationship or interest, unless all parties to the arbitration consent to any such relationship or acquiring any such interest.

E. Arbitrators shall conduct themselves in a way that is fair, in word and action, to all parties and must not be swayed by outside pressure, public clamor, fear of criticism or self-interest. If an arbitrator determines that he or she cannot serve impartially, that arbitrator shall decline appointment or withdraw from serving and shall notify the parties, and the court in court-administered arbitrations.

F. When an arbitrator's authority is derived from the parties' agreement, the arbitrator shall not exceed that authority nor do less than required to exercise that authority completely. Where the parties' agreement sets forth procedures to be followed in conducting the arbitration or refers to rules to be followed, the arbitrator must comply with such procedures or rules.

G. An arbitrator shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent delaying tactics, harassment of parties or other participants, or other abuse or disruption of the arbitration process.

H. An arbitrator's ethical obligations begin upon acceptance of appointment and continue throughout all stages of the proceeding. In addition, wherever specifically set forth in these Canons, certain ethical obligations begin as soon as a person is asked to serve as an arbitrator and continue for one year after the decision in the case has been given to the parties.

I. An experienced arbitrator should participate in development of new practitioners in the field and should engage in efforts to educate the public about the value and use of arbitration procedures. An arbitrator should provide pro bono services, as appropriate.

These Canons were adopted by Court Order dated September 9, 1999, effective October 1, 1999.

Comment

References to "commercial" in American Bar Association & American Arbitration Association, Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, Canon I(1977) (Code), 33 Bus. Law. 311(1977), from which these Canons have been adapted, have been deleted. Excess verbiage has been deleted. The catchline has been changed from "should" to "shall" to underscore the mandatory nature of the principle; "should" has been omitted in Canon I.A in the penultimate sentence, and the language amended, to underscore this. "Should" in the last sentence has been changed to "shall." "Should" has been changed to "shall" or "must" in other parts of the Canon.

Other additions in Canon I.A follow the Preamble to North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission, Standards of Conduct for Mediators, 344 N.C. 753 (Standards). The addition in Canon I.B gives examples of circumstances in which persons may offer services as arbitrators. It is consistent with N.C. Ct-Ord. Arb. R. 2(a). Unlike the Code, Canon I.B says it "may be" inconsistent with the integrity of the arbitration process to solicit appointment as an arbitrator. This is because of the difficulty, e.g., in drawing a line between advertisement permitted by law and solicitation that is condemned in some professional standards, e.g., those for lawyers. Arbitrators must be mindful of fairness, neutrality, disclosure and conflict of interest principles stated in these Canons. The last sentence in Canon I.B makes it clear that the Canons should not be read to forbid arbitrator advertising where, e.g., commercial free speech principles under the Constitution allow it. The addition in Canon I.C is taken from Standards I.B-I.C and covers situations of court-appointed arbitrators under, e.g., the Uniform Arbitration Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-567.4, or in court-annexed arbitrations; these arbitrators are subject to court order appointing them, and the court is the final arbiter of these issues. The thrust of Canon I.C is consistent with Revised North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Rule), although the latter deals with competence of a lawyer, and the Canon governs competence to serve as an arbitrator. Canon I.D states a one-year rule instead of the "reasonable time" principle of the Code. The one-year rule has been substituted to coincide with the time in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-11, during which a party can move to set aside an award. The Uniform Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1567.13-1-567.14, requires set-aside applications to be made within 90 days of an award. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and N.C.R. Civ. P. 60(b) limit certain judgment set-aside motions to one year. One year has been chosen as the time when nearly all conflict issues would arise and be resolved. The addition to Canon I.D, penultimate sentence, follows the consent rule in Rule 1.12(a). Additions in Canon II.E follow Standard ll.C, with additions to cover court-annexed arbitration or arbitrations where a court has appointed an arbitrator under, e.g., the Uniform Act. "Asked" replaces "requested" in Canon I.H. The phrase "continues for one year" has been added to coincide with the one-year rule for Canon I.D.

Canon I. I has been adapted from Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution, Ethical Standards of Professional Conduct, Support of the Profession (1987) (SPIDR Standards), reprinted in Rena A. Gorlin, Codes of Professional Responsibility 327 (2d ed. 1990); unlike standards applicable to arbitrators in proceedings, Canon I.I is hortatory, not mandatory. The Rules do not include the equivalent of ABA, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 6.1, which says a lawyer should aspire to provide 50 hours of public service a year. See Alice Neece Moseley et al., An Overview of the Revised North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct: An Examination of the Interests Promoted and Subordinated, 32 Wake Forest L. Rev. 939, 990-91 (1997). Since these Canons would apply to all arbitrators, including non-lawyers, and Canon I.I states aspirations to provide continuing education, there is no inconsistency with the Rules. Canon I.I is consistent with North Carolina attorneys' obligations to take 12 hours of continuing legal education a year. Other lawyers teach this CLE, and these lawyers have the same role as Canon I.I would contemplate for experienced arbitrators.

The Canon's language has been tightened.

Canon I generally parallels North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1-3 (Code of Judicial Conduct), See also National Academy of Arbitrators et al., Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management Disputes, ¶¶ 1.A-1.C.2, III.A (May 30, 1996) (Academy Code); International Bar Association, Ethics for International Arbitrators, Arts. 1-2 (1986) (IBA Ethics), 26 Int'l Legal Mat'ls 584 (1987), 6A Benedict on Admiralty, Doc. No. 7-12D (Frank L. Wiswall, Jr. ed., 7th rev. ed. 1999), SPIDR Standards, General Responsibilities & Responsibilities to the Parties § 1, Background and Qualifications.