What is the test for a fiduciary trust to withhold privileged attorney-client information from a former trustee?

Focusing on the "'purpose served by the individual communication'" was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1198, italics omitted.) Rather, the proper focus was on the characterthe "'"dominant purpose"'"of the attorney-client relationship: that is, whether it was personal or fiduciary. (Id. at p. 1198, italics omitted.) To show it was personal, the former trustees had to demonstrate that they: (1) "retained the counsel with whom they communicated in a personal capacity," and (2) "took affirmative steps to distinguish the purported personal advice from advice obtained in a fiduciary capacity." (Id. at pp. 1197-1198, citing Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124, 1139 (Moeller).) If they made that showing, the former trustees could withhold the documents reflecting the privileged communications. (Fiduciary Trust, at p. 1198.)