There are no rules requiring JDA parties to commemorate their agreement in writing; in fact, many JDAs are orally. However, participants who insist on oral agreements should welcome the risk involved. That is, the court may decide on a CCM, no. If left uncorrected, these differences can jeopardize all parties to the common defence agreement. An important provision of any common defence agreement is therefore to deal precisely with what happens when a party decides to denounce or abandon it. When reviewing the validity of a common defence agreement, courts generally focus on whether the interests of the parties are actually coordinated. For example, in a dispute with the Post-9/11 World Trade Center, the District Court for the Southern New York Region refused to recognize the common interest privilege invoked by the WTC leaseholders and the insurance broker`s staff who had obtained coverage for the WTC. First, the exemption from the exemption provides all parties to the exchange with the real possibility of better representation by providing more information to establish a position and inform decision-making in anticipation or litigation. In the absence of such protection between two parties sharing a common interest, the threat of mandatory disclosure may impede the exchange of inside information between the parties and, therefore, nullify any desire to coordinate the legal strategy. The protection of this communication promotes openness, which might otherwise have been inhibited, and allows lawyers to fully and fully prepare for the process by ensuring that their legal preparations are not accessible to an adversary. Protection is not absolute. The Court of Appeal extended the exception to communication between one party and not the other in the common interest. “The question of whether disclosure of the client, without the presence of a lawyer, is an exception to the common interest rule of the waiver rule is not an issue on which we must decide.” The Commission should also consider the protection of certain communications of the parties in the context of a JDA.

JDAs cannot protect any communication. B which is not covered in the first place by the privilege of the lawyer client. To obtain the privilege of communicating with others, a party must generally show three things: that the communication ended in a common defence, that the communications were made to support the objectives of that common defence, and that the privilege was not nullified elsewhere (i.e. that the common defenders do not share communication beyond their small group). And in the context of the discussion back in Oregon, it is interesting to note that a court that would have obtained the Oregon law on Krug`s actual circumstances would probably have had the same conclusion as the Krug court. As mentioned above, OEC 503 does not extend solicitor-client privilege to communication between the co-accused themselves. In order for disclosure to be protected below the rule, it must be: in the context of mass offences in which a complainant generally makes similar claims against many defendants in a particular sector, coordinating defence efforts among co-accused may be a very prudent approach. By working together to develop a common process strategy and defence, competitors can pool their knowledge, know-how and resources to achieve the most beneficial outcome for their respective clients. However, this practice is tainted by anti-personnel mines that can have devastating effects on clients and practitioners. In complex mass crimes, different lawyers necessarily represent different clients on issues of common interest. While formulating a common defense is a collective effort, lawyers involved in multi-defendant mass actions should not lose sight of the need to share work products and confidential information with their competitors, which has the potential to leave clients exposed and find the way forward for future litigation.