Civil Joint Defense Agreement
Many potential problems can be avoided by carefully developing common defence agreements. Among the clauses to be taken into account: when a party to a common defence agreement decides to cooperate with the government, the potential for disclosure of confidential information also threatens other defendants. (Quotes are omitted). Federal courts have an independent interest in streamlining criminal proceedings within the ethical standards of the profession and for judicial proceedings to appear fair to all who observe them. Courts also have an independent interest in protecting a fair trial from trial tactics that can be used to create appeal issues. Given the high potential for absurdity, courts have every right to seek common defence agreements before making problems.  This is just another example of the need for carefully concluding common defence agreements that explicitly define the roles and relationships of lawyers and clients. In order to reduce the chances of a waiver, the agreement should contain a clause rejecting the right to assert such a waiver and an affirmative waiver of Section 962 and a recitation of its text. When reviewing the validity of a common defence agreement, courts generally focus on whether the interests of the parties are actually coordinated.
For example, in a dispute with the Post-9/11 World Trade Center, the District Court for the Southern New York Region refused to recognize the common interest privilege invoked by the WTC leaseholders and the insurance broker`s staff who had obtained coverage for the WTC. In Oregon, civil doctrine is well codified according to ORS 40.255, Rule 503 (2) (c) of the OECD – and extends solicitor-client privilege to communications “by the client or lawyer to a lawyer representing another person in a matter of common interest.” The accused learned that the difficult path in the United States v. Krug.  In Krug, a written JDA was concluded by co-accused and their lawyers. After the agreement was implemented, the co-accused had a discussion on issues related to their case. The court found that the corridor discussions were not protected by the JDA and could be used as evidence against it during the trial.by