Section 12(c) and (d) also require a party to make a timely objection to the arbitrator's continued service in order to preserve grounds to vacate an award under Section 23(a)(2). Bossley v. Mariner Fin. Grp., Inc., 11 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000) ("A party who does not object to the selection of the arbitrator or to any alleged bias on the part of the arbitrator at the time of the hearing waives the right to complain."). Where the arbitrator makes the disclosure under Section 12(c) prior to the hearing, the party normally must object prior to the hearing; if the arbitrator fails to disclose a required fact under Section 12(d), the party should object within a reasonable period after the person learns or should have learned of the undisclosed fact.

5. Special problems are presented by tripartite panels involving non-neutral arbitrators - that is, in situations such as where each of the arbitrating parties selects an arbitrator and a third, neutral arbitrator is jointly selected by the arbitrators chosen by the parties. See generally III Macneil Treatise § 28.4. In some such cases, it may be agreed that the arbitrators chosen by the parties are not regarded as "neutral" arbitrators, but are deemed to be predisposed toward the party which appointed them. See, e.g., AAA, Commercial Disp. Resolution Pro. R-12(b), 19. However, in other situations even the arbitrators appointed by the parties may have a duty of neutrality on some or all issues. The integrity of the process demands that the non-neutral arbitrators chosen by the parties, like neutral arbitrators, disclose pertinent interests and relationships to all parties as well as other members of the arbitration panel. It is particularly important for the neutral arbitrator to know the interest of the arbitrator selected by each of the parties if, for example, such non-neutral arbitrator is being paid on a contingent-fee basis. Thus, Section 12(a) and (b) apply to non-neutral arbitrators but under a "reasonable person" standard for someone in the position of a party and not a neutral arbitrator. Nasca v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 2000 WL 374297 (Colo. Ct. App., April 13, 2000) (finding that party-appointed arbitrator had duty to disclose substantial business relationship with the party).

Section 12(c) and (d) also apply to non-neutral arbitrators but with a somewhat different effect than to a neutral arbitrator. For example, an undisclosed substantial relationship between a