Rule 67.1. Collaborative Law Proceedings
Arizona Revised Statutes AnnotatedRules of Family Law Procedure
17B A.R.S. Rules Fam.Law Proc., Rule 67.1
Rule 67.1. Collaborative Law Proceedings
(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.
(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.
(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).
(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.
(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.
(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) 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:
(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.
(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:
(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.
Added Aug. 30, 2018, effective Jan. 1, 2019.
Former Rule 67.1, relating to Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, was abrogated Aug. 30, 2018, effective Jan. 1, 2019. See, now, this rule.
17B A. R. S. Rules Fam. Law Proc., Rule 67.1, AZ ST RFLP Rule 67.1
Current with amendments received through 11/1/18
|End of Document||© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.|