Gelvin v. Hon. parker/gelvin

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court clarified that attorney‑client privilege does not automatically extend to communications with a third party absent the client unless the third party’s presence is objectively necessary, and it reaffirmed that the party asserting privilege bears the burden of proof. The Court overruled Accomazzo to the extent it conflicted with this rule and held that the change applies prospectively, not retroactively, and remanded for further proceedings.