In disputes, the defendants often have a common interest in defeating the applicant`s claims. Particularly in situations where the co-accused do not attempt to blame each other, the courts have recognized that the accused can defend each other jointly and share trust and secrets (as well as expenses). In that context, although communications between defendants are not protected in subsequent disputes between them, they are protected against discovery by the applicants. As a purely legal matter, the common privilege of the defence is an erroneous name, as it is not in fact an affirmative privilege; rather, it is an exception to the waiver rule. In general, the disclosure of inside and confidential information to third parties constitutes a waiver of privilege. However, those protected by a common defence agreement may avoid renouncing and retain the privilege, notwithstanding the disclosure of confidential information to third parties. As a starting point, many courts distinguish between the common privilege of the defence and that of the community and find that the former is narrow and results from actual disputes, while the privilege of the common interest is broader and does not require the opening of a dispute. Many other dishes use the terms almost interchangeable, without significant distinction between the two. Selby v.
O`Dea, 2017 IL App (1st) 151572, is the first case in Illinois to recognize the validity of a joint defense agreement. In that decision, the First District Appellate Court stated: “. We believe that, in a case that agrees to disclose information in accordance with their common interest in defeating their opponent, Coparties does not waive the privilege of lawyer or work product if they do so. Third, attorney privilege in Illinois already protects the client`s testimony to the necessary agents of the attorney or client, including some experts and investigators who do not testify to help prepare the case. Based on the above, prudent counsel may conclude that a JDA is simply never worth the effort. Instead, there is hope that all consultants will be able to identify the very real risks, complexities and concerns related to JDAs when they become familiar with the EPA stories that have gone wrong. In this way, the decision to take one or give up on occasion is informed and thoughtful, and above all in the best interest of the client. . . .