Arizona

Family Law

Family Law

Rule 67.1 – Collaborative Law Proceedings

(a)Short Title. The provisions of this rule may be cited as the Uniform Collaborative Law Rules.
(b)Definitions. In this rule:

(1) “Collaborative law communication” means a statement, whether oral or in a record, or verbal or nonverbal, that:

(A) is made to conduct, participate in, continue, or reconvene a collaborative law process; and
(B) occurs after the parties sign a collaborative law participation agreement and before the collaborative law process is concluded.
(2) “Collaborative law participation agreement” means an agreement by persons to participate in a collaborative law process.
(3) “Collaborative law process” means a procedure intended to resolve a collaborative matter without intervention by a tribunal in which persons:

(A) sign a collaborative law participation agreement; and
(B) are represented by collaborative lawyers.
(4) “Collaborative lawyer” means a lawyer who represents a party in a collaborative law process.
(5) “Collaborative matter” means a dispute, transaction, claim, problem, or issue for resolution, including a dispute, claim, or issue in a proceeding, which is described in a collaborative law participation agreement and arises under the family or domestic relations law of this state, including:

(A) marriage, dissolution, annulment, and property distribution;
(B) legal decision-making, parenting time, and visitation;
(C) spousal maintenance, and child support;
(D) adoption;
(E) parentage; and
(F) premarital, marital, and post-marital agreements.
(6) “Law firm” means:

(A) lawyers who practice law together in a partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, or association; and
(B) lawyers employed in a legal services organization, or the legal department of a corporation or other organization, or the legal department of a government or governmental subpart, agency, or instrumentality.
(7) “Nonparty participant” means a person, other than a party and the party’s collaborative lawyer, that participates in a collaborative law process.
(8) “Party” means a person that signs a collaborative law participation agreement and whose consent is necessary to resolve a collaborative matter.
(9) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, public corporation, government or governmental subpart, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(10) “Proceeding” means:

(A) a judicial, administrative, arbitral, or other adjudicative process before a tribunal, including related prehearing and post-hearing motions, conferences, and discovery; or
(B) a legislative hearing or similar process.
(11) “Prospective party” means a person that discusses with a prospective collaborative lawyer the possibility of signing a collaborative law participation agreement.
(12) “Record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
(13) “Related to a collaborative matter” means involving the same parties, transaction or occurrence, nucleus of operative fact, dispute, claim, or issue as the collaborative matter.
(14) “Sign” means, with present intent to authenticate or adopt a record:

(A) to execute or adopt a tangible symbol; or
(B) to attach to or logically associate with the record an electronic symbol, sound, or process.
(15) “Tribunal” means:

(A) a court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity which, after presentation of evidence or legal argument, has jurisdiction to render a decision affecting a party’s interests in a matter; or
(B) a legislative body conducting a hearing or similar process.
(c)Applicability. This rule applies to a collaborative law participation agreement that meets the requirements of Rule 67(d).
(d)Collaborative Law Participation Agreement; Requirements.

(1) A collaborative law participation agreement must:

(A) be in writing;
(B) be signed by the parties;
(C) state the parties’ intention to resolve a collaborative matter through a collaborative law process under these rules;
(D) describe the nature and scope of the matter;
(E) identify the collaborative lawyer who represents each party in the process; and
(F) contain a statement by each collaborative lawyer confirming the lawyer’s representation of a party in the collaborative law process.
(2) Parties may agree to include in a collaborative law participation agreement additional provisions not inconsistent with these rules.
(e)Beginning and Concluding Collaborative Law Process.

(1) A collaborative law process begins when the parties sign a collaborative law participation agreement.
(2) A tribunal may not order a party to participate in a collaborative law process over that party’s objection.
(3) A collaborative law process is concluded by a:

(A) resolution of a collaborative matter as evidenced by a signed document;
(B) resolution of a part of the collaborative matter, evidenced by a signed agreement, in which the parties agree that the remaining parts of the matter will not be resolved in the process; or
(C) termination of the process.
(4) A collaborative law process terminates:

(A) when a party gives written notice to other parties that the process is ended;
(B) when a party:

(i) begins a proceeding related to a collaborative matter without the agreement of all parties; or
(ii) in a pending proceeding related to the matter:

a. initiates a pleading, motion, order to appear, or request for a conference with the tribunal;
b. requests that the proceeding be put on the tribunal’s active calendar; or
c. takes similar action with notice to the parties; or
(iii) except as otherwise provided by subpart E(7), when a party discharges a collaborative lawyer or a collaborative lawyer withdraws from further representation of a party.
(5) A party’s collaborative lawyer must give prompt notice to all other parties in a record of a discharge or withdrawal.
(6) A party may terminate a collaborative law process with or without cause.
(7) Notwithstanding the discharge or withdrawal of a collaborative lawyer, a collaborative law process continues, if within 30 days after the date that the notice of the discharge or withdrawal of a collaborative lawyer required by section E is sent to the parties:

(A) the unrepresented party engages a successor collaborative lawyer; and
(B) in a signed document:

(i) the parties consent to continue the process by reaffirming the collaborative law participation agreement;
(ii) the agreement is amended to identify the successor collaborative lawyer; and
(iii) the successor collaborative lawyer confirms the lawyer’s representation of a party in the collaborative process.
(8) A collaborative law process does not conclude if, with the consent of the parties, a party requests a tribunal to approve a resolution of the collaborative matter or any part thereof as evidenced by a signed record.
(9) A collaborative law participation agreement may provide additional methods of concluding a collaborative law process.
(f)Proceedings Pending Before Tribunal; Status Report.

(1) Persons in a proceeding pending before a tribunal may sign a collaborative law participation agreement to seek to resolve a collaborative matter related to the proceeding. The parties must file promptly with the tribunal a notice of the agreement after it is signed. Subject to subpart (f)(3) and sections (g) and (h) of this rule, the filing operates as an application for a stay of the proceeding.
(2) The parties must file promptly with the tribunal notice in a record when a collaborative law process concludes. A stay of the proceeding under subpart (f)(1) is lifted when the notice is filed. The notice may not specify any reason for termination of the process.
(3) A tribunal in which a proceeding is stayed under subpart (f)(1) may require the parties and collaborative lawyers to provide a status report on the collaborative law process and the proceeding. A status report may include only information on whether the process is ongoing or concluded. It may not include a report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, finding, or other communication regarding a collaborative law process or collaborative law matter.
(4) A tribunal may not consider a communication made in violation of subpart (f)(3).
(5) A tribunal must provide parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissing a proceeding in which a notice of collaborative process is filed based on delay or failure to prosecute.
(g) Emergency Order. During a collaborative law process, a tribunal may issue emergency orders to protect the health, safety, welfare, or interest of a party or other protected person as defined in Rule 5 of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure.
(h)Approval of Agreement by Tribunal. A tribunal may approve an agreement resulting from a collaborative law process.
(i) Disqualification of Collaborative Lawyer and Lawyers in Associated Law Firm.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subpart (i)(3), a collaborative lawyer is disqualified from appearing before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subpart (i)(3) and sections (j) and (k) of this rule, a lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated is disqualified from appearing before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter if the collaborative lawyer is disqualified from doing so under subpart (i)(1).
(3) A collaborative lawyer or a lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated may represent a party:

(A) to ask a tribunal to approve an agreement resulting from the collaborative law process; or
(B) to seek or defend an emergency order to protect the health, safety, welfare, or interest of a party or protected person as defined in Rule 5 of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure if a successor lawyer is not immediately available to represent that person.
(4) If subpart (i)(3)(b) applies, a collaborative lawyer, or lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated, may represent a party or protected persons defined in Rule 5 of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure only until the person is represented by a successor lawyer or reasonable measures are taken to protect the health, safety, welfare, or interest of the person.
(j)Low Income Parties.

(1) The disqualification of subpart (i)(1) of this rule applies to a collaborative lawyer representing a party with or without fee.
(2) After a collaborative law process concludes, another lawyer in a law firm with which a collaborative lawyer disqualified under subpart (i)(1) of this rule is associated may represent a party without fee in the collaborative matter or a matter related to the collaborative matter if:

(A) the party has an annual income that qualifies the party for free legal representation under the criteria established by the law firm for free legal representation;
(B) the collaborative law participation agreement so provides; and
(C) the collaborative lawyer is isolated from any participation in the collaborative matter or a matter related to the collaborative matter through procedures within the law firm which are reasonably calculated to isolate the collaborative lawyer from such participation.
(k)Governmental Entity as Party.

(1) The disqualification of subpart (i)(1) of this rule applies to a collaborative lawyer representing a party that is a government or governmental subpart, agency, or instrumentality.
(2) After a collaborative law process concludes, another lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated may represent a government or governmental subpart, agency, or instrumentality in the collaborative matter or a matter related to the collaborative matter if:

(A) the collaborative law participation agreement so provides; and
(B) the collaborative lawyer is isolated from any participation in the collaborative matter or a matter related to the collaborative matter through procedures within the law firm which are reasonably calculated to isolate the collaborative lawyer from such participation.
(l)Disclosure of Information. Except as provided by law other than these rules, during the collaborative law process, on the request of another party, a party must make timely, full, candid, and informal disclosure of information related to the collaborative matter without formal discovery. A party also must update promptly previously disclosed information that has materially changed. The parties may define the scope of disclosure during the collaborative law process.
(m)Standards of Professional Responsibility and Mandatory Reporting Not Affected. These rules do not affect:

(1) the professional responsibility obligations and standards applicable to a lawyer or other licensed professional; or
(2) the obligation of a person to report abuse or neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of a child or adult under the law of this state.
(n)Appropriateness of Collaborative Law Process. Before a prospective party signs a collaborative law participation agreement, a prospective collaborative lawyer must:

(1) assess with the prospective party factors the lawyer reasonably believes relate to whether a collaborative law process is appropriate for the prospective party’s matter;
(2) provide the prospective party with information that the lawyer reasonably believes is sufficient for the party to make an informed decision about the material benefits and risks of a collaborative law process as compared to the material benefits and risks of other reasonably available alternatives for resolving the proposed collaborative matter, such as litigation, mediation, arbitration, or expert evaluation; and
(3) advise the prospective party that:

(A) after signing an agreement if a party initiates a proceeding or seeks tribunal intervention in a pending proceeding related to the collaborative matter, the collaborative law process terminates;
(B) participation in a collaborative law process is voluntary and any party has the right to terminate unilaterally a collaborative law process with or without cause; and
(C) the collaborative lawyer and any lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated may not appear before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter, except as authorized by subparts (i)(3), (j)(2), or (k)(2) of this rule.
(o)Coercive or Violent Relationship.

(1) Before a prospective party signs a collaborative law participation agreement, a prospective collaborative lawyer must make reasonable inquiry whether the prospective party has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with another prospective party.
(2) Throughout a collaborative law process, a collaborative lawyer reasonably and continuously must assess whether the party the collaborative lawyer represents has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with another party.
(3) If a collaborative lawyer reasonably believes that the party the lawyer represents or the prospective party who consults the lawyer has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with another party or prospective party, the lawyer may not begin or continue a collaborative law process unless:

(A) the party or the prospective party requests beginning or continuing a process; and
(B) the collaborative lawyer reasonably believes that the safety of the party or prospective party can be protected adequately during a process.
(p)Confidentiality of Collaborative Law Communication. A collaborative law communication is confidential to the extent agreed by the parties in a signed writing or as provided by law of this state other than these rules.
(q)Privilege Against Disclosure for Collaborative Law Communication; Admissibility; Discovery.

(1) Subject to sections R and S of this rule, a collaborative law communication is privileged under subpart (q)(2), is not subject to discovery, and is not admissible in evidence.
(2) In a proceeding, the following privileges apply:

(A) A party may refuse to disclose, and may prevent any other person from disclosing, a collaborative law communication.
(B) A nonparty participant may refuse to disclose, and may prevent any other person from disclosing, a collaborative law communication of the nonparty participant.
(3) Evidence or information that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected from discovery solely because of its disclosure or use in a collaborative law process.
(r)Waiver and Preclusion of Privilege.

(1) A privilege under section (q) of this rule may be waived in a record or orally during a proceeding if it is expressly waived by all parties and, in the case of the privilege of a nonparty participant, it is also expressly waived by the nonparty participant.
(2) A person that makes a disclosure or representation about a collaborative law communication which prejudices another person in a proceeding may not assert a privilege under section (q) of this rule, but this preclusion applies only to the extent necessary for the person prejudiced to respond to the disclosure or representation.
(s)Limits of Privilege.

(1) There is no privilege under section (q) of this rule for a collaborative law communication that is:

(A) available to the public under Arizona law or rule, or made during a session of a collaborative law process that is open, or is required by law or rule to be open, to the public;
(B) a threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence;
(C) intentionally used to plan a crime, commit or attempt to commit a crime, or conceal an ongoing crime or ongoing criminal activity; or
(D) in an agreement resulting from the collaborative law process, evidenced by a record signed by all parties to the agreement.
(2) The privileges under section (q) of this rule for a collaborative law communication do not apply to the extent that a communication is:

(A) sought or offered to prove or disprove a claim or complaint of professional misconduct or malpractice arising from or related to a collaborative law process; or
(B) sought or offered to prove or disprove abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of a child or adult, unless the Arizona Department of Child Safety or the Adult Protective Services, Division of Aging and Adult Services, Arizona Department of Economic Security, is a party to or otherwise participates in the process.
(3) There is no privilege under section (q) of this rule if a tribunal finds, after a hearing in camera, that the party seeking discovery or the proponent of the evidence has shown the evidence is not otherwise available, the need for the evidence substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality, and the collaborative law communication is sought or offered in:

(A) a court proceeding involving a felony or misdemeanor; or
(B) a proceeding seeking rescission or reformation of a contract arising out of the collaborative law process or in which a defense to avoid liability on the contract is asserted.
(4) If a collaborative law communication is subject to an exception under subpart (s)(2) or (s)(3), only the part of the communication necessary for the application of the exception may be disclosed or admitted.
(5) Disclosure or admission of evidence excepted from the privilege under subpart (s)(2) or (s)(3) does not make the evidence or any other collaborative law communication discoverable or admissible for any other purpose.
(6) The privileges under section (q) of this rule do not apply if the parties agree in advance in a signed record, or if a record of a proceeding reflects agreement by the parties, that all or part of a collaborative law process is not privileged. This subsection does not apply to a collaborative law communication made by a person that did not receive actual notice of the agreement before the communication was made.
(t)Authority of Tribunal in Case of Noncompliance.

(1) If an agreement fails to meet the requirements of section (d) of this rule, or a lawyer fails to comply with section (n) or (o) of this rule, a tribunal may nonetheless find that the parties intended to enter into a collaborative law participation agreement if they:

(A) signed a record indicating an intention to enter into a collaborative law participation agreement; and
(B) reasonably believed they were participating in a collaborative law process.
(2) If a tribunal makes the findings specified in subpart (t)(1), and the interests of justice require, the tribunal may:

(A) enforce an agreement evidenced by a record resulting from the process in which the parties participated;
(B) apply the disqualification provisions of sections (e), (f), (j), and (k) of this rule; and
(C) apply a privilege under section (q).

Ariz. R. Fam. Law. proc. 67.1

Added Aug. 27, 2015, effective Jan. 1, 2016; amended effectiveJan. 1, 2019.