An op-ed column in the April 17 Pueblo Chieftain by CCJL’s Mark Hillman apparently got under the skin of Colorado Trial Lawyers Association vice president James M. Croshal, whose letter to the editor displayed tactics with which defendants against frivolous lawsuits are all too familiar.

After claiming that the op-ed was “inaccurate and untrue,” Croshal engages mostly in argument and identifies only one “fact” as untrue:

“I . . . know for a fact that (CTLA) did not sponsor or propose the legislation that Mr. Hillman rants against.”

There’s only one problem – Hillman’s column said nothing of the sort.  He merely noted that “trial lawyers and their anti-business enablers” argued for Senate Bill 72 as if they believed that “lawyers never bring frivolous lawsuits” and “employees never file dubious claims” against former employers.

Defending themselves against claims created out of whole cloth is a tactic that costs Colorado businesses thousands of dollars in distractions, lost productivity and, oh yeah, attorney costs.

It seems Croshal doth protest too much — and too little.  Tellingly, he doesn’t dispute the hard facts in Hillman’s column:

• That more than 90 percent of complaints filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Division failed even to show probable cause.
• That those meritless claims may, nonetheless, proceed to court for a second bite at the apple.
• That accused employers must defend themselves against those frivolous claims at costs of $25,000 to $50,000 without ever going to trial and upwards of $100,000 if the case proceeds to trial.

Otherwise, his letter largely consists of the same old arguments – that it’s not “anti-business” to allow employees to “protect their rights” – that is, the right to sue their employers.

Of course, the right to sue isn’t a right in the traditional sense, as rights – the right to freedom of speech, or of religion, or to petition government, or to keep and bear arms – impose no burden anyone else.

By contrast, the “right” to sue your employer is by its very definition a burden – saddling employers with the expense and distraction of proving their innocence by justifying hiring and firing decisions to jurors who may not have any experience with running a business or managing employees.

That’s why legislature must responsibly regulate the ability to sue.

Finally, Croshal has his knickers in a twist that businesses “are able to write off the cost of a lawsuit as a business expense.”

If, as a consequence of doing business, an employer can be sued and thereby forced to spend thousands of dollars defending its practices, then why, pray tell, should paying for that legal expertise be any less deductible as a business expense than paying an accountant to keep the books or paying another attorney to handle a transaction?

Mr. Croshal’s contention to the contrary puts his business credentials – and more particularly his common sense – in serious doubt.