A. Subject to Sections 18 and 19 of this act, a collaborative law communication is privileged under subsection B of this section, is not subject to discovery, and is not admissible in evidence.
§ 3317.Privilege Against Disclosure For Collaborative Law Communication - Admissibility - Discovery
Chapter 41A: Structured Settlement Protection Act of 2001 · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified August 3, 2026
In one sentenceMakes a collaborative law communication privileged, undiscoverable, and inadmissible in a proceeding, letting a party or a nonparty participant refuse to disclose it and block others from disclosing it, subject to the exceptions in Sections 3318 and 3319.
Full Text of § 3317
B. In a proceeding, the following privileges apply:
1. A party may refuse to disclose, and may prevent any other person from disclosing, a collaborative law communication; and
2. A nonparty participant may refuse to disclose, and may prevent any other person from disclosing, a collaborative law communication of the nonparty participant.
C. 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.
Amendment History
Added by Laws 2025, c. 226,s. 17, eff. 1/1/2026.
Plain-English Summary
Section 3317 is what gives collaborative law communications real legal shelter. Subject to the waiver rules and exceptions in Sections 3318 and 3319, a collaborative law communication is privileged: it's not subject to discovery and can't come into evidence. A party can refuse to disclose it, and can stop anyone else from disclosing it too. A nonparty participant -- someone like a financial adviser who joined the process without being a party -- gets the same right over their own collaborative communications.
The privilege doesn't create a loophole for evidence that would otherwise be admissible: information doesn't become privileged or shielded from discovery just because it was also disclosed or used during the collaborative process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can what I say during collaborative law be used against me later in court?
Generally no. Section 3317 makes a collaborative law communication privileged, not subject to discovery, and not admissible in evidence, subject to the exceptions in Sections 3318 and 3319.
Can a nonparty participant, like a financial expert, keep their statements privileged too?
Yes. A nonparty participant may refuse to disclose, and may prevent others from disclosing, a collaborative law communication of that nonparty participant.
If I already had a document before collaborative law started, does using it in the process make it privileged?
No. Evidence or information that's otherwise admissible or discoverable doesn't become privileged or protected from discovery solely because it was disclosed or used in the collaborative process.
Is this privilege absolute?
No. Sections 3318 and 3319 set out how the privilege can be waived and list specific communications and circumstances where it doesn't apply.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes, enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature.
Last verified August 3, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: collaborative law privilege oklahomais collaborative law communication discoverable12 O.S. § 3317collaborative law evidence privilege family law