Cited by

¶ 10 (2003), or "if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision."

¶ 10 (2003) (citing cases).2 ¶12 Arizona’s crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies “when there is a prima facie showing that a communication with an attorney was used to perpetuate a crime or fraud.” ¶ 34 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

¶ 10 (2003) (citing cases), this court reviews de novo findings that the attorney-client privilege has been waived, State ex rel.

(We will affirm the factual findings of the trial court “so long as they are supported by reasonable evidence.”); cf. Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

v. Burke, ¶ 10 (2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

v. Burke, ¶ 10 (2003); Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

v. Burke, ¶ 10 (2003)), and we also review de novo whether a privilege applies, see State ex rel.

v. Burke, –54 ¶ 10 (2003).

–54, ¶ 10 (2003); Ariz. R.P.

¶ 18 (2003) (emphasis added).

¶ 10 (2003); 3 As an additional sanction, the superior court referred Bruno to the State Bar of Arizona “for appropriate disciplinary action.” 8 BERG, et al. v. WEISS & MOY, et al. Decision of the Court Lund v. Donahoe