A secret only helps you if the law agrees it’s a secret. We sit down with Spencer Schiefer and Russ Rutrasoff to break down three recent Arizona Supreme Court decisions that redraw the lines around confidentiality, privilege, and mandatory reporting, with real stakes and very real consequences.
We start with clergy penitent privilege in a criminal context: when someone tells a pastor about a serious crime, what actually stays protected, and what becomes admissible evidence. The court’s new four-part framework turns on specifics like whether the statement is a true confession for absolution, who counts as clergy under that faith’s rules, and whether the communication happens as part of church discipline. We also talk about the practical side: why informal settings and “damage control” talk can destroy a privilege claim, and why you should understand the difference between spiritual counseling and legal protection.
Then we move into divorce and custody, where people often rely on a parent or best friend just to get through the process. A new standard makes it harder to keep attorney client communications privileged when a third party is present, even if everyone signs confidentiality paperwork. We explain what “objectively necessary” might look like, why the burden can land on the client, and how this could change day-to-day strategy in family law litigation.
We close with the toughest policy question: clergy reporting obligations when child abuse is disclosed, and the confessional carve-out that can block liability for failure to report. If you care about legal ethics, religious liberty, victim protection, and how courts balance competing rights, this conversation will stick with you. Subscribe for more, share this with a friend who loves legal deep dives, and leave a review so more people can find the show.