A Review of Specialized Business Courts

This article examines models of specialized business courts and their success in other states and considers how Colorado could create a court to handle complex business cases.

Though Colorado has traditionally been among the best states for economic growth, it appears to be losing some steam in recent years. In April 2026, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment reported a decrease in Colorado’s labor force of 5,200. According to the Colorado Chamber Foundation, at least 98 companies have relocated out of the state since 2019. New business filings as of the beginning of 2025 were up slightly from 2024, but still much lower than they were in 2023. Still, Colorado continues to experience GDP growth.

Some of Colorado’s economic condition is, of course, related to headwinds beyond the state’s control. But it may be that some of the circumstances causing companies to leave or scale back are within the control of the legislature and judiciary. At least according to the Chamber Foundation, many of the businesses that left identified the burdens imposed by Colorado law. Some of these burdens involve Colorado’s statutory or regulatory environment. Addressing those concerns may be difficult or controversial. Perhaps there is another way that the state can become more business-friendly without compromising on some of its legislative priorities.

One way Colorado could help streamline burdens for businesses, or at least signal its willingness to do so, is to consider adopting a specialized business court. A recent Colorado Lawyer article asked if it was time to consider specialized business courts. This article expands on that question by examining Colorado’s past efforts to address complex business litigation and considering the experience of other states. Drawing on the perspective of a business litigator, it aims to provide a foundation for further discussion within Colorado’s legal community.

Why Some Business Cases So Complex?

Complexity is not unique to business disputes. Motivated counsel can make any case complex. But business cases wear their complexity on their sleeve. They tend to involve lengthy contracts like purchase agreements or corporate governing documents. Because a company is made up of many people and engages in more economic activity than an individual, business cases can involve more parties and witnesses, including companies, subsidiaries, and members or shareholders of each. For the same reason, entities tend to generate more documents than a single human litigant would, so the cases can involve extensive communications, numerous email accounts from different employees, and complicated accounting records. All of these factors increase the number of things to fight about in discovery and document dumps to deal with.

Business disputes also typically involve large dollar amounts and well-funded counsel on both sides. This tends toward robust litigation that, while professionally satisfying, is time-consuming. Indeed, the added complexity born of JD ingenuity begins long before reaching the courthouse steps. Complicated business contracts and transaction documents are the product of sophisticated legal teams trying to predict and counter-predict the outcome of the deal. From contract drafting through trial and the development of new case law, business disputes are often tailor-made to increase complexity. Courts recognize that business cases thus “draw upon a body of law developed in response to the unique nature of commercial disputes.” A complex business case has an inherent, probable risk of requiring more effort and time for the judiciary to resolve than most other kinds of cases.

Yet, in Colorado, business cases are generally placed on the same civil docket as any other case. To its credit, Colorado has adopted specific rules requiring early consideration of proportionality and the specific needs of each case. This only goes so far, however, when a judge is inundated with cases of many different kinds and must become generally familiar with many areas of law instead of sinking deeply into jurisprudence in a single area.

Limitations of the Data on the Scope of the Problem

Business law practitioners likely all have personal anecdotes about clients frustrated by delays in resolving complex business disputes or by unpredictable outcomes. Colorado courts deal with a large number of cases each year, but data on how many complex business cases exist and how much delay they are causing is hard to find.

In 2025, there were 76,271 civil case filings in Colorado. Of these, 21,311 occurred in the Denver District Court alone. These figures are not unusual in recent years. The total number of district court civil filings since 2020 were:

The Colorado Judicial Branch’s Annual Statistical Reports do not include a category for “complex business” disputes, making it hard to determine exactly how many cases involve such disputes. However, in 2025, there were 8,091 filings for cases coded in ways that might suggest a complex business case, including breach of contract, fraud, goods sold and delivered, injunctive relief, money, replevin, and specific performance. Of these, 1,232 were filed in Denver alone.

The filing of a few thousand complex business cases a year could have a substantial effect on a civil docket. In the context of discovery and motions practice, presenting a civil judge and their staff with hundreds of pages of briefing, contracts, email communications, and accounting records will necessarily require significant time to review. The law surrounding complex business issues can be specialized or rely on out-of-state authority, requiring additional time to research. This time has to be fit into the existing caseload and pulls time from other cases. This is made more difficult by the fact that Colorado has needed “additional judges at every level” since at least 2024.

Prior Attempts to Address Complex Business Cases in Colorado

Colorado has dabbled with applying special rules to streamline commercial disputes several times in recent years, with mixed results.

The 2000 Governor’s Task Force

Around 2000, Colorado established a Governor’s Task Force on Civil Justice Reform to “explore the potential benefits and disadvantages of a business court system devoted exclusively to the resolution of commercial disputes.” The task force considered business cases to include those involving (1) the rights, duties, or liabilities of equity owners, managers, or agents of any form of business entity; (2) the formation, sale or purchase, or merger or conversion of entities; (3) conduct invoking antitrust or unfair competition laws or agreements with entities involving competition or interference; (4) commercial transactions not involving a consumer; and (5) intellectual property.

The task force recommended a specialized court for these kinds of cases, pointing to complaints from businesses about cases taking too long to resolve and resulting in unpredictable outcomes. It also noted that a specialized business court would develop its own substantive jurisprudence, which would theoretically help guide future disputes. It bemoaned the use of private arbitration because it deprived future litigants the information and guidance available from published decisions.

This report was followed by some important changes. The task force recommended creating a simplified procedure for cases involving less than $100,000, and in 2003 Colorado did exactly this in adopting CRCP 16.1. But, as for the adoption of a business court, Chief Justice Mullarkey rejected the idea because there were not enough cases to justify it. At the time, she reported only 230 “business cases” pending in the Denver County District Court. Depending on what fraction of the civil cases today would be called “business cases,” today’s figure could be 1,000 or more.

The 2010 Civil Access Pilot Project

Leading up to 2010, Judge Ann Frick (then a practicing lawyer) and Gordon Netzrog led a task force that resulted in the adoption of the Civil Access Pilot Project (CAPP). That project, which lasted from 2010 to 2014, set up a streamlined procedure for certain cases, including “business actions.” CAPP did recommend different procedures, but not a different court, for business disputes. While active, CAPP required plaintiffs to make disclosures ahead of the answer deadline, required the case to have a single judge for its entire lifespan, imposed limitations on discovery and expert testimony, and required active case management.

Some of the ideas in CAPP were retained and incorporated into the civil rules, such as the case management conference requirements in the modern Rule 16. But the idea of creating a separate set of procedures for “business actions” was not preserved. This may have been because the definition used by CAPP was much broader than the one used by the 2000 task force and did not neatly align with the archetype of a complex business dispute that predictably requires more judicial resources. CAPP expansively defined “business actions” as disputes between businesses or between business and individuals, legal or equitable, that involved

• breach of contract,
• business torts such as unfair competition or fraud,
• the Uniform Commercial Code,
• commercial real property,
• owner/investor derivative actions,
• commercial class actions,
• business transactions with banks,
• disputes involving internal affairs of businesses,
• commercial insurance,
• entity dissolution,
• securities,
• antitrust, or
• intellectual property.

The Institute for Advancement of the American Legal System, in its report on the effects of CAPP, noted that this definition was “unrelated to any existing category of cases and is subject to differing interpretations.” Among other things, the fact that “contract” actions were included meant that the definition swept in cases not really intended to be involved, such as construction defect, employment, or professional malpractice.

Development of Specialized Business Courts in Other States

Most other states have adopted specialized business courts in some fashion. Delaware led the way back in 1792 with its Court of Chancery. This court was not originally designed to be a forum for complex business disputes. It began, rather, as a specialized court to handle cases at equity rather than at law, unique among the early states. When corporations arose, this was a natural forum for resolving internal corporate disputes, which are often equitable in nature. Recognizing that these same benefits could flow to sophisticated commercial disputes in courts of law, the president judge of the Delaware Superior Court issued an administrative directive in 2010 creating the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Superior Court, which hears disputes for monetary awards in business and commercial matters.

Despite the Court of Chancery’s two-century-long notoriety, it was not until the early 1990s that serious interest began to develop in creating courts that specialize in business-related disputes. Multiple factors explain why this movement began to take shape when it did. First, as the economy became more globalized and interconnected, business became more sophisticated and wide-ranging. What’s more, commercial litigants became frustrated with how state courts were processing these types of cases, as they often involved multiple judges participating in a single case who were not particularly informed of the substantive law and procedural complexities surrounding business and commercial litigation. As a consequence, many felt a pressing need to develop courts that were well-equipped to deal with the challenges stemming from complex business and commercial disputes.

New York and Illinois took the lead in this moment of innovation. In 1993, the Supreme Court of New York in New York County created a pilot commercial program “in an effort to identify ways to shore up confidence in the ability of the state courts of New York to effectively and efficiently address complex commercial disputes.” The pilot program was a success, and in 1995 the chief judge created the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of New York, which originally operated in New York and Monroe Counties but soon expanded to other counties. Meanwhile, in Illinois, the Presiding Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court’s Law Division issued an administrative directive in 1992 that created a pilot program for a specific Commercial Calendar whereby “individual judges would handle the entire proceedings for individual cases assigned to them.” This program also was a success, and the number of judges in the Commercial Calendar Section has steadily increased throughout the years.

New York’s Commercial Division was heralded as a paragon for the development of specialized business courts, and many states sought to replicate the model in their own jurisdictions. As of 2025, 27 states have a business court of some kind operating within their borders, whether at the county, city, regional, or statewide level. In addition, four states have programs dedicated to complex litigation more generally, which oftentimes encompasses business and commercial cases. The appendix to this article lists the states that have adopted some form of specialized commercial court.

Types of Business Courts in Other States

States have experimented with different models of specialized courts. A business court can be a specialized docket, track, or program within the civil trial court system; a separate division of the civil court system; or an entirely separate court within an overarching legal system. Accordingly, the term business “court” is somewhat of a misnomer because it doesn’t always mean a court separate and apart from the general civil legal system, but a special program or division within it. The different approaches share some commonalities. They usually require a single judge with some specialized experience or training in this area to preside over the entire case from start to finish.

Commentators recognize four basic models of specialized business courts used in the various states. Some states define a list of the types of cases the court can adjudicate along with a minimum amount in controversy. Examples of cases that typically fall on these lists include intra-corporate disputes, corporate sales and purchases, securities transactions, shareholder derivative actions, corporate officer and director liability actions, and sales of goods or services between businesses. This uses a definition similar to that used by the 2000 task force in Colorado.

Other states only allow a case to proceed to the business court if it is “complex.” This model requires judicial gatekeepers to assess the overall complexity of the case by considering factors such as the nature and number of issues, the amount in controversy, the volume of evidence, and the number of witnesses. This approach is more subjective than the first because the designated gatekeeper looks at the totality of the circumstances as opposed to a predefined list of criteria in deciding whether a particular case should be heard by the business court. This model somewhat resembles CAPP, which emphasized active case management and judgment by the judicial officer on what kind of procedure to permit.

Other states incorporate aspects of the first two models. Known as “hybrid business courts,” these systems prescribe a set of cases that must be heard by the business court but also allow discretion for cases that do not fall under the list. North Carolina’s business court system is an example of a hybrid model, requiring certain types of cases to be heard by the business court while also providing courts discretion to hear cases that are not explicitly included in the list if they are deemed “complex.”

Finally, some states have implemented so-called complex litigation courts. The jurisdiction of these courts is not necessarily based on the subject matter of the dispute, but on indicia of the case’s procedural complexity, such as the number of issues, documents, and witnesses involved, as well as the intricacies of the legal issues themselves.

The Experience of Other States

Where data exists on the results of specialized business courts in other states, it has largely been positive. In Pennsylvania, a survey from 2000 found that 90% of respondents were “very satisfied” with the Philadelphia Commerce Court. In Massachusetts, a 2003 study found that 88% were extremely or very satisfied, and the court had generated 300 written decisions in the first three years. In Iowa, about 87.5% agreed that the specialized court improved the quality of business litigation.

Data concerning the efficiency of specialized business courts also tends to be positive. According to one cross-jurisdictional study in 2012, specialized business courts resolved complex contract claims an average of 1,138 days faster than nonspecialized courts, and resolved complex tort claims 718 days faster. The New York Commercial Division saw a 35% case disposition increase from 1992 to 1993 and a 44% increase from 2000 to 2002. Arizona saw a moderate improvement in time to resolve cases of 373 days in its specialized court versus 415 days as a baseline. In Indiana, motions to dismiss or for summary judgment were ruled on in less than 30 days.

There is also some research suggesting that specialized business courts provide economic benefits to states that adopt them. A 2017 study found that businesses were 5% to 7% more likely to invest in a state that had adopted a specialized business court.

Next Steps in Colorado

If the legislature or judiciary in Colorado is interested in reviving the idea of a specialized business court, there are several possible next steps. One step that may have broader benefits than for the establishment of a business court is creating greater transparency into the state’s trial court dockets. The statistical data currently available makes it difficult to ascertain exactly which kinds of cases are causing docket congestion. Policymakers and practitioners might benefit from information beyond their anecdotal experiences. As the state also grapples with the coming wave of legal services being provided by nonlawyers, including AI systems, greater access to court information may give rise to more innovation and greater access to justice. This information may also help guide Colorado into targeted solutions to improving court efficiency.

If the data is already compelling enough without more access to court information, then policymakers could consider the available information collected by its prior experiments with specialized business dockets and the options available from other states. The wheel need not be reinvented; successful models are already in place across the country.

Colin E. Moriarty practices with Moriarty Underhill LLC in Greenwood Village. Focusing on business and commercial litigation and arbitration, he has litigated business disputes, construction and fabrication defect claims, employment discrimination lawsuits, subcontractor litigation, state RICO fraud lawsuits, civil theft disputes, insurance appraisal and adjustment disputes, and other lawsuits involving complex commercial and construction matters—[email protected]. Matt Knaster is an associate at Moriarty Underhill LLC. He focuses his practice on civil litigation, including mechanic’s liens, contract disputes, arbitrations, business owner disputes, and some larger business litigation—[email protected]. Coordinating Editor: David P. Steigerwald, [email protected]; Rachel Burkhart, [email protected].