The attorney-client privilege is so fragile that even disclosing protected communications to family members normally waives it. An Arizona appellate court recently took a forgiving view, but a concurring judge sounded the alarm.
In Gelvin v. Parker, a wife who had filed for marriage dissolution signed an “Authorization” explaining that she intended to share privileged communications with her mother (who also signed it), while ” ‘retain[ing] the attorney-client privilege.’ ” No. 1 CA-SA-24-0252, 2025 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 344, at *2 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2025). A lower court predictably found that she had nevertheless waived her privilege. The appellate court reversed, pointing to a 2014 Arizona case. A concurring judge severely criticized that 2014 case’s “novel interpretation” that was “at odds with decades of case law” and “irreconcilable with the familiar principle that the attorney-client privilege is to be narrowly construed.” Id. at *19-21.
It will be interesting to see if some future Arizona appellate court decision acknowledges this concurring judge’s correct analysis of the majority view — under which even disclosure to a parent normally waives the fragile attorney-client privilege protection (but not the more robust work product doctrine protection).
