The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently issued a published decision in favor of a Bulso PLC client on an evidentiary-privilege question. The court held that the opposing litigant had to produce communications between herself and a former attorney because she had failed to prove the elements of the privilege as to any of the communications. The other party had included an unrelated third party in communications with the attorney, but failed to show which communications did and which did not include the third party, insisting that the inability to distinguish between the two kept all the communications privileged. The Court of Appeals held it had precisely the opposite effect, affirming the lower court decision on different grounds. Pagliara v. Pagliara, 614 S.W.3d 85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020).