With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 353, 276 S.E.2d 743, 745 (1981). The public policy behind this reasoning is sound. “A foundation of the arbitration process is that by mutual consent the parties have entered into an abbreviated adjudicative procedure, and to allow ‘fishing expeditions’ to search for ways to invalidate the award would tend to negate this policy.” Fashion Exhibitors v. Gunter, 291 N.C. at 217, 230 S.E.2d at 387. Defendants rely on the American Arbitration Association’s Rules and Code of Ethics in asking this Court to adopt the “appearance of impropriety” standard seemingly enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968), r pp. 208, 211, 341 S.E.2d 42, 44, disc. review denied, 317 N.C. 714, 347 S.E.2d 457 (1986) (<HOLDING>); and In re Arbitration Between State and

A: holding improper counsels argument that opposing counsel knew why plaintiff delayed in bringing action where opposing counsels knowledge was not in evidence
B: recognizing that a surveyor was an expert witness
C: holding that arbitrators appearance as expert witness for clients of opposing counsels former law firm was insufficient to establish an objective basis for believing the arbitrator was biased
D: holding that counsels failure to call an expert rebuttal witness does not constitute ineffectiveness the pcra petitioner must demonstrate that an expert witness was available who would have offered testimony designed to advance his cause
C.