It is also a good practice to ensure that your client is aware of the restrictions imposed by the joint defence agreement and orders him not to discuss the case with the other parties to the joint defence agreement without the presence of a lawyer. The exception for common defence also bears, according to the States, the following names: common defence doctrine, common defence privilege, common prosecutor`s privilege, lawyer`s privilege, doctrine of common interest, exception of common interest, common interest privilege, common interest rule, common defence doctrine, shared information privilege, common purpose theory, community of Interest doctrin, Joint client privilege, the doctrine of the joint client, the exception of common interest to renounce and privilege of shared confidentiality. Yet there are often cases where the defendants are similar and the defenses overlap. If the defense is similar, the best defense strategy may be a common defense in which attorneys and their parties can share defense strategies and theories and exchange information that would otherwise be privileged according to the doctrines of the attorney`s client or work product. In the absence of a valid joint defence agreement, the parties risk waiving the privileges of counsel and work product, as they technically disclose confidential information in the presence of a third party. It would be best to establish the common defence agreement in writing in order to avoid any ambiguity as to the intention of the parties. In cases where multiple companies are sued, the defendants are often represented by a separate lawyer. These situations usually occur between different entities, but also occur in the employer-employee context. The intervention of different lawyers is usually necessary because of the diversity of defenses and conflicts of interest between the accused. The Court of Appeal has also created broad protection for users of a common defence agreement: the purpose of this email is to recall our discussions yesterday on the common interests of our clients in FIFA`s cases.
We will work together in accordance with an agreement of common interest. I understand that it will have terms similar to the last one we had, and we can know if we need to have it in writing, specific details, etc., when you land. It is effective from yesterday.  There is no rule requiring the parties of a JDA to give their written consent to the monument; In fact, many JDAs are spoken. However, participants who insist on oral agreements should have considered the associated risk. That is, there is no risk that the court will decide on a JDA. In the Tribunal`s view, the corridor communication did not serve the interests justifying the 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 for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court simply called the communications “a corridor debate [composed of] a JDA member who passed on his independent, non-legal research to another JDA member, while finding that he had sent the same research to his lawyer.”  In addition, the court noted that “the mere fact that the communications took place between co-accused who had adhered to a common defence agreement was no longer sufficient to protect the statements from disclosure.” 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 create a JDA.