Since the Collaborative Law approach to divorce, separation and other family law issues is fairly new, early studies are just being published about its effectiveness. A high degree of effectiveness has been observed of the collaborative process, with well over 94% of cases reaching resolution through the process. Anecdotally, lawyers and clients are consistently reporting that it can be quicker, less expensive and less painful than a typical divorce, with approximately 95% of cases reaching settlement. Perhaps more significantly, the subjective quality a collaborative divorces appears to be substantially better than with litigated divorces.

According to the Wikipedia article about Collaborative law, a Canadian government study found high levels of satisfaction with the process. Best of all, the collaborative approach helps all the family members come through the divorce with the least amount of trauma and distress. Because the parents aren't fighting, the children adjust better.

The key document in a collaborative case is the Participation Agreement. It is a contract signed by the participants, which sets forth the rules for the process. The parties and lawyers agree that:

1. The lawyers will not litigate the case. If the process fails, and litigation is the only recourse, the original lawyers must withdraw and the parties must retain new lawyers (the "disqualification" provision);
2. Neither party will take advantage of mistakes by the other side;
3. The parties will freely disclose all pertinent information and will not hide any material facts;
4. What is said in the settlement meetings remains confidential;
5. All experts will be neutral, and hired jointly by both parties and their children; and
6. Everyone will behave courteously and in good faith.

1. The disqualification provision is a key element to a collaborative case. It ensures that the lawyers' interests are aligned with the clients' interests of reaching settlement by eliminating any incentive to take the case to trial. It also ensures that clients and lawyers work more diligently towards a negotiated resolution, because if a settlement is not reached they are "fired" by their respective clients. collaborative practitioners believe that when court is no longer a good option, non-court methods of reaching settlement are more likely to be pursued. Collaborative Law practitioners also believe that the disqualification provision adds a necessary element of trust to the participants, thereby enhancing the likelihood of resolution. Additionally, when court is not an option, it is believed that many collaborative lawyers will retool to learn the additional skills that may be needed to resolve disputes without resorting to a third party decision maker.

2. This is a process of trust. As such, the agreement not to take advantage of a mistake of the other party is intended to facilitate that trust. This is based on the understanding that when children are involved there is a need for an on-going relationship between the parties. A short term advantage that a litigator may obtain from taking advantage of a technical legal mistake of the other lawyer can lead to a long term disadvantage is harboring mistrust among the parties.

3. Even in a litigated divorce, the parties must disclose information. But this can be an expensive process as attorneys and parties try to only disclose what they have to under the rules. Open disclosure merely discloses that which the parties should be required to disclose in an atmosphere of trust and efficiency that should reduce legal costs.

4. As opposed to exposing your family and finances to an open court process, Collaborative Law respects the privacy of the family. This is important to shield the children. In cases with no children, the fact that one's financial information is not disclosed in an open court process is important.

5. Neutral experts are important in cases whether or not children are involved. In Litigation cases with children, people often hire mental health experts to prove the other party wrong and subject the children to these "experts" to prove a point. In litigation financial experts are hired to prove a point. In both instances the parties' sensitive information is exposed to the other side's hired gun and to a public process. Hiring two experts is expensive. In the Collaborative Process, time and money is saved by the parties agreeing on one expert to make the best decisions for their children and their finances.

6. The concept of behaving in a courteous manner and in good faith acknowledges the relationship the parties once had. It also acknowledges that the parties will have to deal with each other again in the future if they have children, and the likelihood of future cooperation is enhanced when parties can be courteous. It also is part of the concept that the parties are working towards an amicable resolution.

Some lawyers who are not trained in the collaborative process believe that the disqualification clause is an unnecessary disadvantage, because all parties are required to appoint new lawyers if the collaborative process ends without settlement. However, it is extremely rare for a collaborative case to end without settlement. Further, the parties know their respective attorneys are committed to settlement because they will be fired if the case does not settle. Otherwise, the lawyers can have a financial incentive not to settle as they can be paid quite a bit more if the case proceeds to trial.