Kowal Law Group Logo
judgment gavel

Arbitrator reversed for basing credibility on use of interpreter

Tim Kowal     October 23, 2023

I will tell you two facts about this recent arbitration case, and let you guess how the Court of Appeal concluded. But be warned: your guess will be wrong.

Fact one: The arbitrator found for the buyer (in a dispute over a business sale) based on the arbitrator’s conclusion that the seller’s lack of credibility was “rampant and obvious.”

Fact two: The aggrieved seller petitioned to vacate the award, but did not assert error in this credibility finding.

But the Court of Appeal reversed the arbitration award in FCM Invs. v. Grove Pham, LLC (D4d1 Oct. 17, 2023) No. D080801. The reason: The credibility determination was based on the fact that the seller testified using an interpreter. The arbitrator noted that “Mrs. Pham's use of an interpreter appeared to the Arbitrator to be a ploy to appear less sophisticated than she really is. She has been in the country for decades, has engaged in sophisticated business transactions and has herself functioned as an interpreter.”

That was held to be bias and reversible per se, and not forfeited even though the seller did not argue it in the trial court.

The court held that bias based on language is a form of arbitrator misconduct. And an award must be vacated where "[t]he rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator." "Misconduct" in this context includes actions that create a reasonable impression of possible bias. (Betz v. Pankow (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1507-1508 (Betz II).)

What about forfeiture? True, failing to raise an issue in the trial court operates as forfeiture. But forfeiture “is not automatic: appellate courts retain discretion to consider points that were not raised before the trial court. (Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1210; Redevelopment Agency v. City of Berkeley (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 158, 167 (Redevelopment Agency).) There are two exceptions to forfeiture, both of which were present here: (1) the bias was clear on the record without need of any further evidence; and (2) the language bias was a matter “involving the public interest or the due administration of justice.” All litigants are entitled to impartial adjudication free from arbitrary considerations of race, gender, or national origin. (Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 919, 926 (Betz I).)

The court concluded: “Bearing in mind that an arbitration award must be vacated where there is an impression of possible bias irrespective of actual bias, we find that standard amply met. Broad discretion to evaluate witness credibility (Evid. Code, § 780) does not permit credibility assessments rooted in bias.”

The court also noted recent legislation emphasizing the importance of providing interpreters "to all parties who require one" (Gov. Code, § 68092.1, subd. (a)), and drew the inference that “courts cannot, as a matter of public policy, draw adverse credibility inferences from a litigant's decision to exercise that right.”


The holding appears to amount to a categorical rule that an arbitrator may never deny an interpreter, even in cases where this is evidence of gamesmanship. Here, there was no reporter's transcript of the arbitration, which normally means that the reviewing court must presume there was evidence to support the arbitrator’s conclusions of Pham’s facility in English, having served as an interpreter previously. But the Court of Appeal was not persuaded. The court pointed to the respondent-buyer’s pleadings, which noted that Phuong had relied on her daughter as an interpreter during a conference call. This undermined the arbitrator’s conclusion of Phuong’s facility in English.

The fact that a single anecdote can overturn the normal presumptions drawn from an absent oral record suggests that the rule here is a categorical one.

Tim Kowal is an appellate specialist certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. Tim helps trial attorneys and clients win their cases and avoid error on appeal. He co-hosts the Cal. Appellate Law Podcast at CALpodcast.com, and publishes summaries of cases and appellate tips for trial attorneys. Contact Tim at [email protected] or (949) 676-9989.
Get “Not To Be Published,” a weekly digest of these articles, delivered directly to your inbox!

Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.


"God made the angels to show Him splendor, … Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind."

— Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons

"Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading. They cannot ask that a judgment afterwards obtained be set aside merely because their equilibrium was slightly disturbed by an unexpected motion."

Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334

"It may be that the court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else."

— Hon. Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of Australia

"Upon putting laws into writing, they became even harder to change than before, and a hundred legal fictions rose to reconcile them with reality."

— Will Durant

"A judge is a law student who grades his own papers."

— H.L. Mencken

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

— Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"So far as the beginnings of law had theories, the first theory of liability was in terms of a duty to buy off the vengeance of him to whom an injury had been done whether by oneself or by something in one's power. The idea is put strikingly in the Anglo-Saxon legal proverb, 'Buy spear from side or bear it,' that is, buy off the feud or fight it out."

— Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law

"Moot points have to be settled somehow, once they get thrust upon us. If an assertion cannot be proved, then it must be settled some other way, and nearly all of these ways are unfair to somebody."

—T.H. White, The Once and Future King

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

— James Madison, Federalist 62

"At common law, barratry was 'the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up suits and quarrels' (4 Blackstone, Commentaries 134) and was punished as a misdemeanor."

Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187

Copyright © 2024 Kowal Law Group
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram