Defence counsel can also divide the work by issuing certain tips for certain preliminary investigations or motions (and all other parties join the motions instead of writing their own). In addition, experienced procedural advisors should take the lead to help other lawyers prepare for trial and court. A JDA does not work well if the Board is inexperienced, lacks leadership or when defence cannot coordinate effective work-sharing efforts. Therefore, consultants should discuss their experience and skills shortly after the JDA is completed and before the investigation phase begins. No good discussion about the JDAs begins without first discussing the doctrine of the common interest; A concept that breathes life into all JDAs. The teaching of the common interest (sometimes called the common privilege of the defence) is an extension of solicitor-client privilege. It allows parties who have a common interest in defeating a mutual legal opponent to freely share information without worrying about waiving solicitor-client privilege regarding their disclosure. A coordinated defence effort from the outset of the case, through investigations, preliminary proceedings and court proceedings, is beneficial for all, because the more parties involved in the JDA, the less time it takes for the defence to take charge of its case. The advisor can and must aggressively defend the client at the micro level, while working with JDA members at the macro level, to coordinate efforts and share costs. The purpose of the JDA for defence lawyers is to focus exclusively on their client`s individual position in this case, instead of working as a team to achieve a common goal – a defense judgment. As such, alignment of the parties can be very effective in preventing the plaintiff from proving liability or creating damages. A JDA can be tight and be among a few accused or wide and among all the accused. It does not need to involve all the accused to benefit everyone.
For example, in the event of a construction error, the parties can only run a JDA among subcontractors or a subset of subcontractors. Or in a construction accident, the JDA can be executed among all the accused, except the landowner. It depends on the questions asked in the case and the strategies of the defendant, her lawyer and the insurer. But in one way or another, narrowly or broadly, the JDA can work to facilitate discovery, present consistent defences and significantly reduce the cost of litigation without assisting the complainant in determining his or her case. There are no rules requiring JDA parties to commemorate their agreement in writing; in fact, many JDAs are orally. However, participants who insist on oral agreements should welcome the risk involved. That is, the court may decide on a CCM, no. Defence parties have been working for years with Common Defence Agreements (JDAs) in a wide range of cases ranging from product liability to construction error to toxic illicit cases. Did JDAs work for her? Complete JDAs can work well for all parties involved with the right timing, case and advice.
Ultimately, if the parties cooperate and cooperate, they can benefit from cooperation between the parties. These agreements generally explain that the parties have a “common legal interest” and will not waive their legal and client privilege by exchanging information. I am quite inthiconic about these types of agreements, because if your client really has a “common legal interest” with someone else, then the law says that the client does not waive his privilege by giving the party the information of common interest covered by the privilege. To say on paper that a client has a common legal interest with another party does not create such an interest if it did not exist. When a party to a common defense agreement decides to cooperate with the government, the potential for disclosure of confidential information also threatens other sixth amendment rights.