The purpose of this email is to recall our discussions yesterday on the common interests of our customers in FIFA-related matters. We will work together in accordance with an agreement of common interest. I understand that it will have similar terms to the last one we had, and we can know if we should have it in writing, specific details, etc. when you land. It has been effective since yesterday.  Joint defence agreements are not contracts establishing the rights chosen by the signatories, but are written communications about the respondent`s use of common law privileges.  Therefore, joint defence agreements cannot offer greater protection than the legal privileges on which they are based.  «A common defence agreement that purports to extend [protection greater than the legal privileges on which it is based] does not set out precisely the protection that would be afforded to defendants who sign. In United States v. Stepney, if the common defence privilege recognized in this circuit does not impose an obligation of loyalty on lawyers who are parties to a joint defence agreement, the duty of loyalty set out in the proposed agreement would have no other effect than to misinform the defendants of the true extent of their rights. The common defence privilege did not impose a general duty of loyalty on all the undersigned defendants and, therefore, the duty of loyalty set out in the draft joint defence agreement had no other effect than to misinform the defendants of the true extent of their rights.  «The draft joint defence agreement expressly imposes on the undersigned lawyers not only an obligation of secrecy, but a separate general duty of loyalty to all signatory defendants. Such an obligation has no legal basis and, if recognised, would offer little chance of proceedings without conflicts of interest and deprivation.  In the event of a conflict, according to the doctrine of «common defence», the joint defendant must accept the waiver of conflicts of interest for the waiver to be effective.  A party seeking joint defence privilege must prove the following: Weissman invoked joint defence privilege to ensure that his own confession would not be used against him. To prove his right to privilege, Weissman`s lawyer testified that at the beginning of the meeting, he asked the business consultant to agree that the meeting would be conducted according to a JDA. According to Weissman`s lawyer, the management consultant agreed. However, the corporate lawyer had a different memory of the meeting and explained that JDA had never been discussed. Joint defence and common interest agreements can be effective tools to promote client interests and reduce costs.
The key is to get it right so that they don`t themselves become the basis of a dispute. While most jurisdictions do not require a formal written agreement to recognize a common defence privilege, the best practice is to document the scope, duration, limits and parties to the common defence privilege. According to the court, the disclosure of the corridor did not serve the interests that warrant the privilege. For example, the communications took place outside the presence of a lawyer (although, as the court notes, the lawyers were nearby) and were not made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court simply called the communications a «corridor discussion [consisting] of a JDA member who passed on his independent, non-legal research to another JDA member, while noting that he had sent the same research to his lawyer.»  In addition, the court noted that «the mere fact that the communication took place between co-defenders who had adhered to a joint defence agreement was no longer sufficient to protect the statements from disclosure.» The defendants learned that the road is difficult in United States v. . . .