AL · rules

Ala. R. Privilege Collaborative L. Prac. 4

Limits of Privilege

activein force · 2026-04-16 – presentact-effective-date

(a) There is no privilege under Rule 2 for a collaborative law communication

that is:

(1) a threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury or to commit a crime of

violence;

(2) intentionally used to plan a crime, to commit or attempt to commit a crime,

or to conceal an ongoing crime or ongoing criminal activity; or

(3) in an agreement resulting from the collaborative law process, evidenced by

a record signed by all parties to the "collaborative law participation agreement."

(b) The privileges under Rule 2 for a collaborative law communication do not

apply to the extent that a communication is:

(1) 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

(2) sought or offered to prove or disprove abuse, neglect, abandonment, or

exploitation of a child or adult.

camera, that the party seeking discovery or the proponent of the evidence has shown that

the evidence is not otherwise available, that the need for the evidence substantially

outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality, and that the collaborative law

communication is sought or offered in:

(1) a court proceeding involving a felony or misdemeanor; or

(2) 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.

(d) If a collaborative law communication is subject to an exception under

subsection (b) or (c) of this rule, only the part of the communication necessary for the

application of the exception may be disclosed or admitted.

(e) Disclosure or admission of evidence excepted from the privilege under

subsection (b) or (c) of this rule does not make the evidence or any other collaborative

law communication discoverable or admissible for any other purpose.

(f) The privileges under Rule 2 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

collaborative law communication made by a person who did not receive actual

notice of the agreement before the communication was made.

History

[Adopted 2-9- 2015.] Alabama Committee Comment This rule is similar to Section/Rule 19 of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act/Rules and delineates specific and exclusive exceptions to the broad grant of privilege provided to collaborative law communications under Rule 2 of these Rules. The exceptions are similar to those contained in the Uniform Mediation Act. Subsection (a)(1) of Uniform Section/Rule 19 was deleted as being unnecessary because the Act is limited to family-law matters. Subsection (b)(2) of this rule omitted the exception relating to a governmental agency's participation contemplated in subsection (b)(2) of Uniform Section/Rule 19. Consistent with the direction of the other states adopting collaborative law statutes or rules, both felonies and misdemeanors are included in subsection (c)(1). Note from the reporter of decisions: The order adopting the Alabama Rules of Privilege in Collaborative Law Practice, including the Alabama Committee Comments, effective February 9, 2015, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from ___ So. 3d.

Provenance

Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-15
Edition: 2026-09-15
Content hash: f0735f42f07bf186903f0070023070b6c3bc045c5b7bdb560648d9986e734ce9

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs