Joint Defense Agreements

A joint defense agreement, which simply states that the parties are co-accused and want to exchange information, may not be enough to protect the privilege. Some courts are skeptical of efforts to hide behind a privilege that has been waived and are reluctant to extend the privilege to third parties in the absence of evidence that such an extension is supported. Other jurisdictions have continued to interpret a common interest, but the risk remains that the courts may find that the interests of the parties are not sufficiently “common” or “common” to recognize a common defence agreement. The best way to proceed is to articulate common legal interests, including positions, defences and potential commitments. Of course, not all cases in which clients and their lawyers wish to exchange information with others and their lawyers are related to litigation. To address this possibility, many courts have extended the principles of common defence privilege to the non-contentious context. In Stepney, several defendants had been charged with violating several drug and gun laws. In an effort to effectively prepare coherent defenses, the defense attorney tried to take a JDA. It was about the court. Specifically, the court looked at the large number of defendants, their lack of familiarity and the many different criminal complaints related to the case. The court also rightly expressed concern about the murder of an accused. For lawyers, this involves dealing with risks such as obligations to non-clients who are parties to the joint defence agreement.

It is recommended that any joint defence agreement will contain provisions that do not serve as a basis for attempting to disqualify another lawyer. Concerned about a proper trial, the safety of the accused and the constitutional rights of the accused, the court – sua sponte – ordered the defense lawyer to submit his JDA proposal to the court for consideration in the form of reflections. The Tribunal found that, in accordance with its supervisory powers, it had considerable powers to monitor its own cases to ensure that justice was in conformity with justice. In support of this point, the Tribunal stated that, in the Tribunal`s view, corridor communications did not serve the interests that warranted privilege. For example, the communications took place outside the presence of a lawyer (although, as the judge notes, the lawyers were nearby) and were not made to obtain legal advice…

Comments are closed.