Chapter 41A: Structured Settlement Protection Act of 2001 · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified August 3, 2026
In one sentenceLists what the Section 3317 privilege never covers -- public or open-session communications, threats of violence, crime-related communications, and the final resulting agreement -- plus situations where a court can order disclosure anyway, such as professional-misconduct claims, abuse allegations, and felony or contract-rescission proceedings after an in-camera balancing test.
A.There is no privilege under Section 17 of this act for a collaborative law communication that is:
1.Available to the public under the Oklahoma Open Records Act or made during a session of a collaborative law process that is open, or is required by law to be open, to the public;
2.A threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence;
3.Intentionally used to plan a crime, commit or attempt to commit a crime, or conceal an ongoing crime or ongoing criminal activity; or
4.In an agreement resulting from the collaborative law process, evidenced by a record signed by all parties to the agreement.
B.The privileges under Section 17 of this act 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, unless the Department of Human Services is a party to or otherwise participates in the process.
C.There is no privilege under Section 17 of this act 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:
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 section, 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 section does not make the evidence or any other collaborative law communication discoverable or admissible for any other purpose.
F.The privileges under Section 17 of this act 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.
Amendment History
Added by Laws 2025, c. 226,s. 19, eff. 1/1/2026.
Plain-English Summary
Section 3319 draws the outer boundary of the privilege Section 3317 creates. Some communications never get the privilege at all: ones already public under the Oklahoma Open Records Act or made in an open session, threats of bodily injury or violent crime, communications used to plan, commit, or conceal a crime, and the terms of the final agreement itself, once evidenced by a signed record.
The privilege also gives way, to the extent needed, in claims of professional misconduct or malpractice arising from the collaborative process, and in allegations of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of a child or adult -- unless the Department of Human Services is a party to or participant in the process. Beyond that, a tribunal can order disclosure in a felony or misdemeanor case, or in a case seeking to rescind or reform a contract from the collaborative process, but only after an in-camera hearing where the party seeking the evidence shows it isn't otherwise available and that the need for it substantially outweighs the interest in confidentiality.
Even when an exception applies, only the part of the communication necessary for that exception can come out, and letting one piece of evidence in doesn't open the door to everything else. And the parties can agree, in advance, that some or all of the process won't be privileged at all -- though that agreement doesn't bind someone who never got actual notice of it before they spoke.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is anything I say during collaborative law always off-limits in court?
Not everything. Section 3319 excludes certain communications from the privilege entirely -- ones already public, threats of violence, crime-related communications, and the resulting signed agreement -- and allows a court to order disclosure of others under specific conditions.
If someone threatens violence during collaborative law, is that protected?
No. A threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence gets no privilege under Section 3319.
Can a court force disclosure of collaborative communications in a criminal case?
Yes, if a tribunal finds, after an in-camera hearing, that the evidence isn't otherwise available and the need for it substantially outweighs the confidentiality interest, and the case involves a felony or misdemeanor.
What if a child discloses abuse during a collaborative law session?
The privilege doesn't apply to the extent the communication is sought or offered to prove or disprove abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of a child or adult, unless the Department of Human Services is a party to or participant in the process.
Can the parties agree upfront that nothing said in collaborative law will be privileged?
Yes, if they agree in advance in a signed record or the proceeding's record reflects that agreement, though it won't bind someone who didn't get actual notice of it before speaking.
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:exceptions to collaborative law privilege oklahoma12 O.S. § 3319abuse disclosure collaborative law privilegein camera hearing collaborative law communication