Common Interest Agreement New Jersey

April 8, 2021

Finally, the third element of the provision of common interest – that disclosure be made in a manner that preserves confidentiality and prevents disclosure to other parties – is most often adopted in the form of a common defence agreement or a similar document that articulates the common interest and sets the fundamental rules for the exchange of privileged information between the parties; However, the New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized that such an agreement was not absolutely necessary as long as the parties provided their information in a manner that would protect the underlying privilege. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a notice that, for the first time in New Jersey, explicitly adopted the “doctrine of common interest.” The July 21, 2014 expertise provided confidentiality protection for the disclosure of lawyers and clients and the proceeds of shared legal work between and between other lawyers and parties with a common interest. While some states, such as Texas and Wisconsin, have actually codified the doctrine, other states have developed the privilege exception through jurisprudence. Although the nuances of the doctrine of common interest differ by jurisdiction, the recognition of the existing exception reflects a national trend and is consistent with other jurisdictional decisions. The case in question arose from two separate actions filed by Longport, N.J., domiciled with Martin O`Boyle. O`Boyle filed both complaints against a member of the Longport Zonal and Planning Committee and two Longport residents. Counsel for Longport, representing the three accused, suggested that Longport`s counsel cooperate in the defence of the current and expected litigation by O`Boyle, who, according to the court, had “an active interest in the affairs of the municipality” and had “filed several complaints against [Longport] and its officials concerning the management of [Longport]”. In order to facilitate this cooperation, the private lawyer developed a joint strategic memorandum and a collection of documents contained on a CD. The private lawyer made this material available to the city`s lawyer, who eventually returned the material to the private lawyer. In the decision to challenge Longport`s withholding of the documents, the New Jersey Supreme Court specifically took up the elements of the common interest provision that was made in a 2011 appeal division decision, LaPorta/

Previous post:

Next post: