This study looked at the experience of lawyers and clients with Collaborative Family Law (CFL) primarily through interviews. In the first year, 66 interviews were conducted in nine sites in the United States and Canada. The following year, 150 interviews conducted for 16 cases. The cases were filed in Vancouver and Medicine Hat in Canada and San Francisco and Minneapolis in the United States.

The study found that the lawyers were mainly motivated to participate in CFL in order to practice law in a way that fit their values and beliefs. The primary goals for clients were to reduce expense and quicken resolution. Another finding was that a number of clients commented that their lawyers underestimated the amount of emotion involved in the case and felt the lawyers were denying their feelings. Clients liked having responsibilities for "solving their own problems," but some felt they did not have enough control over the process.

Other findings of the study are: there is no evidence to date that CFL reduces expense or quickens resolution; outcomes of those cases that settled during the study matched or exceeded the legal standard; there was little explicit acknowledgement of ethical issues among practitioners; and that clients said they selected CFL over mediation because they felt they would do better with an advocate who participated alongside them than with an advocate who was outside the process.

Based on the findings, the researcher recommends "four key values for excellence in CFL": balancing commitment to the process with commitment to the client; transparency about core values and what could go wrong in the process; flexibility and responsiveness; and recognition of the limitations of the CFL model and practice.