You're not alone. In an attorney fee dispute between "prominent local law firms" and their client physicians in West Palm Beach, the matter went to arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators. As is the norm, each side selected an arbitrator and the two arbitrators then selected a "neutral." The 4th DCA noted that the various candidates for the neutral arbitrator position "were very likely to have prior relationships and continuing future contacts with individual parties to this dispute and their professional associates." Indeed, the court also acknowledged that "there can be no doubt that the parties consulted their designated arbitrators on whom to appoint." (FAL.com wonders if this is a criticism, endorsement, or mere acknowledgement of this practice?)

According to the 4th DCA, in Brandon Jones v. Beasley & Hauser, to vacate an arbitrator's award under s. 682.12(1) for "evident partiality" which "prejudices the rights of any party," there must be a reasonable impression of partiality that was was direct, definite and capable of demonstration. The court noted a "very high degree of conclusiveness attaches to an arbitration award. That means that the role of the judiciary in Florida arbitration decisions was meant to be quite limited and rare."

The 4th DCA distinguished the Florida Arbitration Code from the Federal Arbitration Code on this issue, nothing that "the Florida statute adds the qualifying provision prejudicing the rights of any party not found in the federal statute."

Also noteworthy, and perhaps for the first time, an appellate court echoed a frequent criticism of arbitration: "Indeed the final decision could plausably be seen as a division of the baby in equal parts."