Collaborative law is a non-judicial alternative dispute resolution process commonly used for marriage dissolutions.  In this case, a couple undergoing a divorce tried to settle their differences by that means.  At the start they executed a “contract” which stated at the top “that this document does not give either of us enforceable legal rights that we did not already have.”  The “contract” also contained a confidentiality clause.  This opinion holds that the statement that the “contract” is unenforceable fatally undermines any argument that the “contract’s” confidentiality clause blocks one spouse from testifying about what the other said during the collaborative law exercise.  In other words, the confidentiality clause is as unenforceable as the rest of the “contract” is.  The Legislature has not seen fit to enact a statute granting protection for collaborative law ADR as it has for mediation, but the parties can enter into enforceable confidentiality provisions through better drafting.