Joint Defense Agreement With Non Party

Commercial transactions, disputes and disputes often involve several clients with concerted interests, but with different lawyers. Clients and their advisors often want to communicate with other clients and consultants without risking renouncing existing privileges or immunities. Clients and legal advisers can benefit from the options developed by the courts, including through the common defence or the common interest. In Stepney, several defendants were charged with violating several federal drug and gun laws. In an effort to effectively prepare a coherent defense, the defender attempted to take a JDA. It was about the court. In practical terms, these were the large number of accused, their lack of familiarity with each other and the many and varied criminal complaints involved in the case. The court was also rightly concerned about the murder of an accused. Since the existence of common interests is not as obvious as in the context of the trial, it is particularly important that clients and lawyers document the origin, duration, foundation, limitations and end of a common interest agreement. Creation is important to enable the parties to determine precisely when the common interest began in the event of subsequent disputes. Communication between an advisor (or other third party) and a client may be protected by solicitor-client privilege if the advisor is an “intermediate gap” between a lawyer and a client. Garrett v.

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8054 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 1996) (Bernikow, Mag. J.), adopted, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14468 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 2, 2, 1996).

However, it is essential that communication between the advisor and the client be made for the explicit purpose of obtaining the assistance of a lawyer. In re G-I Holdings, Inc. 218 F.R.D. 428, 434 (D.N.J. 2003). In addition, the consultant must be considered the “functional equivalent” of an employee of the client company. Viacom, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. (In re Copper Mkt Antitrust Litig.), 200 F.R.D. 213, 218-20 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

The definition of an advisor as a “functional equivalent” of a company employee depends on whether the advisor is acting for the company and has the information that lawyers need to provide legal advice. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 995 F. Supp. 332, 340 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). And the purpose of consulting-client communication must first and foremost be to seek legal advice – not for commercial purposes. In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 965 (3d Cir. 1997); United States: Rockwell, Int`l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1264 (3d Cir. 1990); Leonen v. Johns-Manville, 135 F.R.D.

94, 98 (D.N.J. 1990). Courts have generally been cautious in applying solicitor-client privileges to communication between clients and external consultants. See Occidental Chem. Corp. v. OHM Remediation Servs. Corp., 175 F.R.D. 431, 437 (W.D.N.Y.

1997); See also United States Postal Service v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156, 159 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); Federal Trade Commission v. TRW, Inc., 202 U.S. App. D.C. 207, 628 F.2d 207, 212 (D.C.Cir. 1980) It is possible that the solicitor`s client privilege and the lawyer`s product may apply to a wholly-assisted subsidiary without legal assistance if the parent company has legal advice.