Title 3. Courts of General Jurisdiction -- Jurisdiction/special Causes of Action — Subtitle 20. Maryland Uniform Collaborative Law Act

In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.

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

“Collaborative law participation agreement” means an agreement by persons to participate in a collaborative law process.

“Collaborative law process” means a procedure intended to resolve a collaborative matter without intervention by a tribunal in which persons:

“Collaborative lawyer” means a lawyer who represents a party in a collaborative law process.

“Nonparty participant” means a person other than a party and the party’s collaborative lawyer that participates in a collaborative law process.

“Party” means a person that signs a collaborative law participation agreement and whose consent is necessary to resolve a collaborative matter.

“Person” means an individual, a corporation, a business trust, an estate, a trust, a partnership, a limited liability company, an association, a joint venture, a public corporation, a government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality or any other legal or commercial entity.

“Person eligible for relief” includes:

“Proceeding” means:

“Prospective party” means a person that discusses with a prospective collaborative lawyer the possibility of signing a collaborative law participation agreement.

“Record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or any other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

“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.

“Sign” means, with present intent to authenticate or adopt a record, to:

“Tribunal” means:

A collaborative law participation agreement shall:

The parties may agree to include in a collaborative law participation agreement additional provisions consistent with this subtitle.

A collaborative law process begins when the parties sign a collaborative law participation agreement.

A tribunal may not order a party to participate in a collaborative law process over that party’s objection.

A collaborative law process is concluded by:

A collaborative law process terminates:

A party’s collaborative lawyer shall give prompt notice to all other parties in a record of a discharge or withdrawal.

A party may terminate a collaborative law process with or without cause.

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 discharge or withdrawal of a collaborative lawyer required by subsection (e) of this section is sent to the parties:

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 of the collaborative matter as evidenced by a signed record.

A collaborative law participation agreement may provide additional methods of concluding a collaborative law process.

Except as provided by law other than this subtitle, during the collaborative law process a party shall:

Parties may define the scope of disclosure during the collaborative law process.

The professional responsibility obligations and standards applicable to a lawyer or other licensed professional; or

The obligation of a person to report abuse or neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of a child or an adult under State law.

Subject to §§ 3–2011 and 3–2012 of this subtitle, a collaborative law communication is privileged under subsection (b) of this section, is not subject to discovery, and is not admissible in evidence.

In a proceeding, the following privileges apply:

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.

A privilege under § 3–2009 of this subtitle may be waived in a record or orally during a proceeding if it is expressly waived by each party and, in the case of the privilege of a nonparty participant, the privilege is also expressly waived by the nonparty participant.

A person that makes a disclosure or representation about a collaborative law communication that prejudices another person in a proceeding may not assert a privilege under § 3–2009 of this subtitle, but this preclusion applies only to the extent necessary for the person prejudiced to respond to the disclosure or representation.

There is no privilege under § 3–2009 of this subtitle for a collaborative law communication that is:

The privileges under § 3–2009 of this subtitle for a collaborative law communication do not apply to the extent that a communication is sought or offered to prove or disprove:

There is no privilege under § 3–2009 of this subtitle 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:

If a collaborative law communication is subject to an exception under subsection (b) or (c) of this section, only the part of the communication necessary for the application of the exception may be disclosed or admitted.

Disclosure or admission of evidence excepted from the privilege under subsection (b) or (c) of this section does not make the evidence or any other collaborative law communication discoverable or admissible for any other purpose.

Notwithstanding the failure of an agreement to meet the requirements of § 3–2002 of this subtitle, a tribunal may find that the parties intended to enter into a collaborative law participation agreement if the parties:

If a tribunal makes the findings specified in subsection (a) of this section and the interests of justice require, the tribunal may: