3 . Although some of the documents were protected only by the work-product doctrine, the sole question presented in this special action is whether the motion to disqualify waives Bradford's ability to assert attorney-client privilege over the documents. 4 . Our supreme court stated a trial judge, at each stage, "should consider whether another judicial officer should conduct the review [or rule on the motion to disqualify] in light of the possibility that a review of privileged materials may be so prejudicial as to require the judge's recusal.” Lund, 232 Ariz. at 312, ¶ 19, 305 P.3d 374. 5 . Other jurisdictions have approved similar approaches in ruling upon motions to disqualify. See Barragree v. Tri-County Elec. Coop., Inc., 263 Kan. 446, 950 P.2d 1351, 1361-62, 1365 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Keith v. Keith, 140 So.3d 1202, 1211-12
holding that a party waives the attorneyclient privilege when it voluntarily consents to the disclosure of any significant part of the communication in issue holding party seeking disqualification waives attorneyclient privilege as to the court so the court may assess the contents of allegedly confidential information and the party may present the information either in a hearing out of the presence of the party against whom confidentiality is to be protected or in camera inspection holding a party seeking mandamus must serve the party against whom relief is sought holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege