Anti-business extremists at the State Capitol would have Coloradans believe that giving up their "right to sue" in exchange for a more efficient, less
adversarial process of dispute resolution is somehow playing into the hands of "big corporations."
In fact, consumers and businesses alike have often found arbitration to be a better way to resolve disputes than long, drawn out lawsuits in which the only real winners are the lawyers who rack up hundreds of billable hours.
House Bills 1261 (sponsored by Rep. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora) and 1262 (Reps. Dominique Jackson, D-Aurora, and Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle) purport to bring "fairness" and "transparency" to arbitration proceedings.
In reality, they would make Colorado's arbitration system just as big a mess as our state's system of civil courts.
Many business contracts require arbitration as a means to settle disputes, rather that lawsuits. That's a choice that businesses and consumers deserve to make for themselves - without unnecessary meddling by politicians.
Arbitration can be cheaper and faster for both parties in a dispute, reducing costs for the largest driver of litigation costs - attorney fees. Arbitration can also be more flexible, less complex, more private and less hostile than endless litigation.
Instead, HBs 1261 and 1262 will make arbitration more difficult and more expensive by inviting litigation against arbitrators.
These bills are also likely to erode modest gains made by the Legislature last year to make it easier for homeowners and builders to resolve disputes over home construction problems and to reduce litigation costs that drive up home prices.
HB 1261 creates new standards for "impartiality" in an environment in which the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act, case law, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, and private contractual standards already establish ethical requirements on arbitrators. This isn't solving a problem. Instead, it's creating one!
HB 1262 creates disclosure requirements that violate contractual confidentiality provisions that typically benefit both parties in a dispute. The bill also creates a cloud over any contract containing an arbitration clause because, U.S. Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests, it will be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
It is important to note that judges and courts do police arbitrator impartiality by reviewing arbitration awards. A party that believes an arbitrator to be biased can ask a court to vacate the award. Ironically, these protections do not apply for judges who preside over lawsuits.
These bills would harm consumers by making arbitration more expensive, thereby leaving consumers at the mercy of trial lawyers and a costly, over-crowded civil litigation system.