In Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. The Hon. Robert D. Myers, 351 P.3d 376 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (No. 1 CA-SA 15-0013), the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disqualification of a lawyer who continued to use materials after being informed by opposing counsel that the materials were privileged and had been inadvertently produced.  The underlying litigation involved a dispute regarding whether a guardianship should be established for Bradford.  Bradford was initially represented by the JS&S firm, but later changed counsel.  Opposing counsel, B&C, served a subpoena on JS&S seeking production of all non-privileged documents.  JS&S, mistakenly believing that B&C was taking over as Bradford’s counsel, delivered a copy of its entire file to B&C without first conducting a privilege review. When Bradford’s then-current counsel, Shumway, learned of JS&S’s disclosure less than a month later, he immediately emailed B&C informing B&C that the file contained at least two privileged documents, which Shumway requested be returned, and that he would review the remainder of the file to determine if it contained additional privileged documents.  The B&C attorney responded that he had not “studied the materials with an eye toward privilege issues” and he would await word from Shumway.  Three weeks later, having not heard from Shumway, the B&C attorney distributed the entire client file, including the documents Shumway had identified as privileged, to all parties to the action.   Bradford moved to disqualify B&C.  In preparation for defense against the motion, the B&C attorney reviewed, in detail, the entire client file.  The trial court, after conducting an in camera  review, found that B&C had violated Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1(f), which provides that “after being notified [of alleged inadvertent disclosure], a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has made and may not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved,” and that the documents had prejudiced Bradford by providing B&C a tactical advantage in the litigation.   The appellate court affirmed, holding that a party need not prove actual prejudice to disqualify opposing counsel, but only that prejudice may occur.  The appellate court noted that, if an attorney knows or has reason to know he has received privileged materials inadvertently, he must apply the procedures articulated in Rule 26.1(f).  “If he does so, he cannot be disqualified for the mere receipt of inadvertently disclosed documents.”