Court Opinion

ID: 9545786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:19:32.019104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:32.842737
License: Public Domain

ERICKSON, Justice,
specially concurring:
While I acknowledge that the right of access to the courts is an important one, Colo. Const, art. II, § 6, the burgeoning case load in our courts has itself caused delay and increased costs. Access to the courts for all litigants may be improved by different alternatives for dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation. See McKay, The Many Uses of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 40 Arb.J. 12 (Sept. 1985).
In my view, the mandatory arbitration pilot project in issue was a legislative method of reducing delay and providing access to the courts by winnowing out those cases that can be resolved by simpler and less costly methods. It is certainly not obvious to me that the method selected by the legislature will prevent some litigants from obtaining access to the courts. Since a number of cases may be satisfactorily resolved before trial, it would appear that arbitration will actually improve access to the courts. See Levin, Court Annexed Arbitration, 16 J.Law Reform 542 (Spring 1983). Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s decision to discharge the rule.