In Grace v. Mastruserio, Hamilton App. No. C-060732, 182 Ohio App. 3d 243, 2007 Ohio 3942, 912 N.E.2d 608, the court delineated the contours of the testimonial privilege and held that in cases which do not involve the testimonial privilege, the common law attorney-client privilege is applicable, and in this instance, the Hearn test remains viable. The Grace Court stated: "The common-law attorney-client privilege 'reaches far beyond a proscription against testimonial speech. The privilege protects against any dissemination of information obtained in the confidential relationship.' The common-law attorney-client privilege protects against the disclosure of oral, written, and recorded information, unless the privilege is waived. At common law, a client may waive the attorney-client privilege either expressly or by conduct implying a waiver. A client may impliedly waive the attorney-client privilege through affirmative acts. Ohio appellate courts have discussed and applied the tripartite test set forth in Hearn v. Rhay."