On July 17, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court clarified when attorney-client privilege extends to communications involving third parties in Gelvin v. Hon. Parker (CV-25-0116-PR). The case centered on whether a client's mother could receive privileged communications after signing a confidentiality agreement with her adult daughter's attorneys. 

The Old Rule (Now Overturned)

Under Accomazzo v. Kemp, 234 Ariz. 169 (App. 2014), such communications were privileged if the client subjectively expected confidentiality. The Court identified two critical problems with this standard: (1) it prioritized the client's subjective beliefs over objective necessity, and (2) it presumed privilege, thereby shifting the burden of proof to parties seeking disclosure. 

The New Rule: Objective Necessity 

 The Court rejected the old rule, and issued a new rule, holding that communications involving a third party are protected only when that person's involvement is objectively necessary to further the attorney's representation of the client. Qualifying situations would include where the third party is an agent of the represented party, or where the third party has some sort of expertise that will help the lawyer represent their client. For example, an attorney may use a translator or person with specialized knowledge to aid in their representation. The necessity test is objective: subjective confidentiality agreements no longer suffice. 

Here, the Court held, the new rule would not protect the communications between the client's mother and the attorneys. While the mother knew facts about the divorce, the client failed to demonstrate that her mother was necessary to effectuate the attorney-client communications. 

The Transition

The Court grandfathered existing reliance on Accomazzo, allowing the communications between the client's mother and the attorneys to remain privileged, noting that the agreement at issue between the client's mother and the attorneys specifically cited Accomazzo. Moving forward, these types of communications will no longer be protected. 

The Takeaway

Do not invite third-parties to your attorney-client communications unless you can prove their presence is objectively necessary. Confidentiality agreements won't save you. 

You can read the full opinion here.