## Facts

- Jeffrey I. Golden, acting as Chapter 7 trustee for Aletheia Research and Management, Inc., brought claims against O’Melveny & Myers LLP relating to O’Melveny’s legal services to Aletheia.
- The parties proceeded in arbitration to resolve their dispute.
- O’Melveny was represented in the arbitration by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
- During the arbitration, Golden raised concerns about possible arbitrator bias.
- The arbitrator disclosed that his son was applying for employment at O’Melveny, Gibson Dunn, and other law firms.
- To avoid any suggestion that a hiring decision could affect the arbitration, O’Melveny and Gibson Dunn stated that neither firm would hire the arbitrator’s son.
- Golden nevertheless sought the arbitrator’s recusal, arguing that the firms’ decisions not to hire the arbitrator’s son did not eliminate the risk of bias and instead made bias more likely.
- The arbitrator declined to recuse and continued with the arbitration proceedings.
- The arbitrator issued a final award.
- Golden returned to federal court and sought to vacate the award, arguing the arbitrator was biased.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitration award should be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act based on “evident partiality” where the arbitrator disclosed his son’s job applications to a party and to that party’s counsel.
2. Whether the parties’ statements that they would not hire the arbitrator’s son established a reasonable impression of bias sufficient to require vacatur.

## Decision

- The court denied Golden’s request to vacate the arbitration award.
- The court confirmed the arbitration award, concluding Golden did not show “evident partiality” within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court reviewing an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act may vacate the award only on the limited statutory grounds set out in 9 U.S.C. § 10.
- “Evident partiality” requires objective facts showing a reasonable impression of bias; speculation, dissatisfaction with the arbitrator’s rulings, or disagreement with the result is not enough.
- An arbitrator’s disclosure of a potential conflict, and steps taken to address the concern, weigh against a finding that the arbitrator concealed a material relationship or that the proceeding was fundamentally unfair.
- A nonparty relative’s job search, without more, does not automatically establish a disqualifying interest requiring vacatur; the reviewing court looks for a concrete connection between the employment situation and the arbitrator’s decisionmaking.

## Conclusion

In Golden v. O’Melveny & Myers LLP, the court refused to set aside an arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias stemming from the arbitrator’s disclosure that his son had applied to work for the defendant law firm and for the firm representing it; because the relationship was disclosed and the alleged risk of bias remained conjectural, Golden failed to prove “evident partiality” under the FAA, and the award was confirmed.


Golden v. O'Melveny & Myers LLP, No. 2:14-cv-08725-CAS(AGRx),