CONSIDERING that the parties have common legal interests in the analysis and defence of certain allegations and claims related to the action, including all potential affirmative defences and counter-claims. The parties wish to ensure that their lawyers are free to share and exchange information that may be useful to the representation of each party, without waiving the confidentiality of communications and documents protected by solicitor-client privilege, the lawyer-work product doctrine or other applicable privileges. The signed lawyers believe that the disclosure of issues of common interest to the contracting parties promotes the effective representation of the contracting parties. Accordingly, the parties agree that all information between and between the parties and their counsel is confidential and confidential for common defence purposes, covered by solicitor-client privilege, the doctrine of the work product and all other applicable privileges, and that the parties intend to apply all privileges or immunities applicable to any information exchanged or exchanged in accordance with this common defence agreement. , in preparation for the , during the defense of and after the decision of the appeal. Notwithstanding the above, there is nothing in this Common Defence Agreement that compels the parties to exercise a common defence during the trial. No good discussion about the JDAs begins without first discussing the doctrine of the common interest; A concept that breathes life into all JDAs. The teaching of the common interest (sometimes called the common privilege of the defence) is an extension of solicitor-client privilege. It allows parties who have a common interest in defeating a mutual legal opponent to freely share information without worrying about waiving solicitor-client privilege regarding their disclosure.

In the Tribunal`s view, the disclosure of the corridors did not serve the interests that justified the privilege. For example, communications were made outside the presence of a lawyer (although, as the court found, the lawyers were nearby) and were not made for the purpose of providing legal advice. The court simply characterized these communications as “a discussion of having a JDA member pass on his independent and non-legal research to another JDA member, while finding that he had sent the same research to his lawyer.” [9] In addition, the court stated that “the mere fact that the communications took place among the co-accused who had joined a common defence agreement was not sufficient to protect the statements from disclosure.” I also confirm that I have the authority to sign this agreement on behalf of another agency that employs me and will do all work related to this commitment, retaining not only myself, but all other staff members of this institution, and that I will take appropriate steps to ensure that this other staff member respects the agreement that accompanies it. 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. The key to fully understanding the scope of the common interest doctrine is to understand how the courts interpret the term “common interest.” To find, for example, a common interest in Oregon, the parties must only demonstrate that their interests are shared or similar; unlike the same. [1] The purpose of this email is to recall our discussions yesterday about the common interests of our customers in FIFA.