---
title: "Screen arbitrator disclosures against the parties and counsel"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/screen-arbitrator-disclosures-against-the-parties-and-counsel/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A6-T1-R9-US"
practice_area: "Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Screen arbitrator disclosures against the parties and counsel

> Set each disclosure beside the list of parties, counsel, and witnesses in the file, and list any name that appears in both, with the sentence of the disclosure. Do not recommend a challenge.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/screen-arbitrator-disclosures-against-the-parties-and-counsel/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Set each disclosure beside the list of parties, counsel, and witnesses in the file, and list any name that appears in both, with the sentence of the disclosure. Do not recommend a challenge. |
| What the lawyer must review | 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2) allows the district court for the district where the award was made to vacate an award where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them. That is a ground for vacating an award, not a mid-arbitration form. The other vacatur grounds in § 10(a) are corruption, fraud, or undue means in procuring the award; misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing or to hear pertinent evidence, or other misbehavior that prejudiced a party; and exceeding powers, or so imperfectly executing them that a mutual, final, and definite award was not made. Formal Opinion 512: the lawyer checks the name match before anyone acts on it. No institutional disclosure rule was opened. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Screen arbitrator disclosures against the parties and counsel](https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/screen-arbitrator-disclosures-against-the-parties-and-counsel.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Set each disclosure beside the list of parties, counsel, and witnesses in the file, and list any name that appears in both, with the sentence of the disclosure. Do not recommend a challenge.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- A match of names is not a finding of evident partiality. The lawyer decides whether to raise it.
- The disclosure form required by an institution was not opened. Screen only the disclosure that is in the file.

## Sources

- [9 U.S.C. § 10, vacation of an award; grounds](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/10) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Model Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/) (checked 2026-10-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*