## Facts

- Dr. Thomas Gionis and Aissa Marie Wayne married, had a daughter, separated, and Wayne filed for divorce and custody.
- After being served with divorce papers, Gionis called his friend John Lueck, an attorney, who agreed to come over but expressly stated he would not be involved “as a lawyer” because he knew both spouses.
- During the visit, Gionis showed Lueck the divorce papers and discussed the case generally; Lueck made only general comments (including that a change of venue might be appropriate) and did not agree to represent Gionis or take legal action.
- Gionis also showed Lueck damage in his home and made statements suggesting a capacity for serious violence, including that Wayne “had no idea how easy it would be for [him] to pay somebody to really take care of her.”
- Later, Wayne and her boyfriend, Roger Luby, were assaulted at Luby’s home by armed men; Luby was beaten and seriously injured, and Wayne was threatened and assaulted.
- The prosecution charged Gionis and others, advancing the theory that Gionis arranged the attack in connection with the custody dispute.
- At trial, Lueck testified to Gionis’s earlier statements; the trial court admitted the testimony over an attorney-client privilege objection.

## Issues

1. Whether Gionis’s statements to Lueck were protected by the attorney-client privilege despite Lueck’s express refusal to represent him.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument improperly disparaged defense counsel and, if so, whether the misconduct was prejudicial requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the convictions (with remand for proceedings consistent with its opinion).
- The Court held the attorney-client privilege did not apply because, after Lueck expressly refused representation, Gionis could not reasonably believe he was consulting Lueck in a professional legal capacity when he made the incriminating statements.
- The Court held parts of the prosecutor’s remarks were improper but did not render the trial fundamentally unfair and were not prejudicial under state law standards.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-client privilege applies only when the speaker’s belief that the attorney is acting as legal counsel is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
- Communications made after an attorney expressly refuses representation are not privileged when that refusal makes any expectation of professional consultation unreasonable.
- A private conversation is not necessarily a privileged legal consultation; the privilege turns on the professional relationship and the purpose and context of the communication.
- Prosecutorial argument may not devolve into personal attacks on defense counsel, but reversal is required only when improper comments infect the trial with unfairness amounting to a due process violation or, under state law, create a reasonable probability of affecting the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court held that statements to an attorney-friend were not privileged when the attorney had clearly declined to act as counsel and the circumstances did not support a reasonable belief of professional consultation, and it further held that criticized closing-argument remarks did not warrant reversal absent prejudice.


People v. Gionis, 9 Cal. 4th 1196 (Cal. 1995)