The court sided with the business counsel and concluded that there was no agreement and refused relief – Weissman`s incriminating statements were not privileged and could be used against him in court. 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. On August 18, 2017, in the United States against Krug, the second circle, verified the limits of solicitor-client privilege under common defense agreements and refuted a district court decision to exclude the testimony of a cooperating co-accused. This decision is a useful reminder of some good practices in participating in common defence agreements (or “common interest”) to ensure that communication is protected by privilege. The second circle, in a statement by Pooler J.A., reverses. The Second Circuit first examined the state of the law relating to common defence agreements and found that “direct communication between clients is not privileged unless it is made for the purpose of communicating with a privileged person,” for example. B with a client`s lawyer or lawyer`s agent, who “facilitates communication between the client and the lawyer.” [1] Pooler J.A. recognized that “lawyer representing the communicating party” should not be present “if notification to counsel for the other party is made as part of a common interest agreement.” [2] In addition, “For privilege, it is essential that disclosure be confidential in order to obtain legal advice from counsel.” [3] 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.