Joint Interest Agreement Definition
As a general rule, a client waives the privilege of a lawyer when he voluntarily transmits privileged communications to third parties.  The renunciation of the common defence doctrine is substantially the same as the waiver of legal privilege. The only difference is that the communication of one co-accused with the other lawyer is not a waiver of the confidentiality of those communications. The voluntary disclosure of allegedly privileged communications to third parties has long been considered incompatible with privilege. It is well regulated that when a party voluntarily transmits privileged communications to third parties, that privilege is waived.  Where a party discloses some of the otherwise privileged material but retains the rest, the privilege is waived only with respect to the communications actually disclosed, unless a partial waiver would be unfair to the party`s opponent.  The mere disclosure without intent may constitute a waiver of solicitor`s privilege. . “after the traditional doctrine of renunciation, a self-denunciation. to a third party waives the privilege of a lawyer, even if the third party agrees not to transmit the communication to third parties.  If, in Massachusetts, an attorney represents more than one client in a given case, one client`s communication with the lawyer in the presence of the other client or other clients between clients is not privileged.  A Thompson v. Cashman, a lawyer who acted for both the applicant and the defendant, was allowed to testify for an interview between the lawyer, the applicant and the defendant.   But not all disclosures lead to a waiver.
“Under the common privilege of the defence, communication between the client and his own lawyer remains protected by solicitors` privilege if it is disclosed to the co-accused or their lawyers for the purpose of common defence.”    For example, in In re Pacific Pictures Corporation, the Ninth Circle considered whether communications between a victim of crime and the government may be eligible for the protection of the doctrine of common interest.  The Tribunal found that “the common desire to see the same result in a legal case is insufficient” and that “the parties must make the communication to pursue a common strategy in accordance with any form of agreement.”  In this case, there was no evidence that the parties agreed to a common legal strategy prior to the disclosures in question, so there was no protection of the doctrine of common interest. In other words, the courts will not allow the parties to use the doctrine of common interest as a post-disclosure recovery measure. The parties must demonstrate that the disclosure was preceded, from the outset, by a manifestation of a common defence effort. Weissman invoked common defense privilege to ensure that his own confession was not used against him. To prove his right to privilege, Weissman`s lawyer said that at the beginning of the meeting, he asked the councillor to agree to the meeting being held according to a JDA. According to Weissman`s lawyer, the consultant agreed. Corporate Counsel, however, had another memory of the meeting, explaining that JDA was never discussed.
Do not start a good discussion on DDAs without first discussing the doctrine of the common interest; A concept that breathes life into all JDEs. The common interest doctrine (sometimes also called joint defense privilege) is an extension of solicitor-client privilege. It allows parties who have a common interest in defeating a mutual opponent of the right, to freely share information without having to worry about waiving legal privilege with respect to their communication.. . . .