||The therapeutic relationship has been a cornerstone of the theory and practice psychotherapy since it first emerged as a healing modality. Evidence of the power of the therapeutic relationship between client and therapist has been extensively reported. Despite the recent emphasis on multicultural awareness and competency in psychotherapy, an important question remains regarding the impact of cross-cultural differences on the therapeutic relationship. Using a phenomenological qualitative methodology, his study examined the lived experience of both clients and therapists in a cross-cultural therapeutic relationship. The results of the 26 participant interviews representing 13 distinct client/therapist pairs with one or more cross-cultural difference yielded two areas of phenomenological description with several themes and subthemes. In Part I, Experience of Relationship, participants described the lived experience of the therapeutic relationship from the initial referral process and development of the trust to the various factors that contributed to developing and strengthening their relationships, including past experiences, initial expectations, behaviors and attitudes that facilitated trust, a sense of mutual commitment, and sincere emotional connection. Four major subthemes were identified in Part I: Referral and Initial Impressions, Development of Therapeutic Relationship, Shared Investment, and Emotional Connection. In Part II, Experience of Differences, participants described the phenomenological experience of meaningful differences between clients and therapists in the same therapy pair, including their awareness of differences, how differences impacted personal identity and the therapy relationship, similarities in their relationships, and the intersection of power and identities in the relationship. In this part, four main themes also emerged: Dimensions of Identity, Differences as Enhancing the Relationship, Building on Common Ground, and Power and Responsibility. Conclusions of the study are considered in terms of limitations and implications for future research, practice, training and social justice.