This article will highlight several developments in the area of privacy laws in Minnesota, the 8th Circle and the U.S. Supreme Court: cases that have expanded the organizational “privacy circle”; exceptions to the rules of privilege, such as “common defence,” “communication officers” and “crime fraud” doctrines; and waiver issues, such as involuntary production and abandonment of work products. But first, we should remember the essential foundations of the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege, the work product and the ethical confidentiality obligation. As seen in Bar Briefs published by the Louisville Bar Association. A common defence agreement is a useful tool that allows the co-accused to exchange information and present a coordinated defence. However, these agreements must be carefully developed to ensure that every customer is protected. In particular, a provision that waives the right of members of the common defence to disqualify lawyers must be clear and precise. This helps to protect the client, while the lawyers involved are nevertheless entitled to some flexibility. The common defence privilege expands the protection of trusted information found in solicitor-client privilege-to communications that are part of a coordinated defence between the co-accused and their respective counsel.
To qualify for the privilege, a party must demonstrate that the communications were made as part of a common defence and were intended to support those efforts. The party must also show that the privilege has not been waived. Federal courts in the sixth circle have approved agreements on common defence in recent years. For example, in Broessel v. Triad Guar. In the. Corp. acknowledged that “increasingly, in order to protect the common privilege of the defence, the parties enter into collective defence agreements written to ensure that the information is shared among counsel for each of the accused, is privileged despite the common rest.” Another example is City of Columbus v. Hotels. com: “When the parties have a common interest in litigation and/or conducting a common defence, they have traditionally been able to share work products without renouncing the protection of privilege.” A number of other relevant cases and statutes have provided substantive evidence and information on common defence agreements: 1. A common defence agreement is useful because it allows co-accused to exchange confidential information while preserving their privileged status. The circle of privileges has also been expanded with two exceptions (communications officers and common defence) and reduced by a third (crime fraud).