§ 172.064.Withdrawal of Arbitrator

A protective sentence that makes the graceful exit possible.

Withdrawal implies nothing. An arbitrator who steps down is not conceding that the ground asserted was valid.

Neither does agreement. A party who agrees to terminate a mandate under Section 172.059(c) or Section 172.061 is not accepting the ground either.

Three sections are named — the challenge grounds in Sections 172.057 and 172.058, and failure or impossibility to act in Section 172.061.

Reputation is the reason. An arbitrator’s standing is a professional asset, and a rule reading withdrawal as an admission of partiality would make stepping aside costly.

Efficiency is the other reason. Many challenges are best resolved by a quiet resignation, and this section removes the disincentive.

It also protects the party that agreed. Consenting to a replacement to keep the arbitration moving does not concede that the tribunal was tainted.

The section closes Subchapter C, which runs from appointment through challenge, termination and substitution.

What follows is the tribunal at work — its decisions, its jurisdiction and its interim powers in Subchapter D.

The section protects an outcome the parties usually want. A challenged arbitrator who steps aside ends the dispute in days rather than months.

It also keeps the record clean for later. A resignation cannot be cited afterward as an admission that the tribunal was compromised.

The named sections are the ones where a ground is asserted — the challenge grounds and the failure-or-impossibility ground — which is where an inference of admission would otherwise arise.