Other reflections Even if mass torturers are not involved in a multi-party conflict where a common defence agreement is required, there are resources available – such as the secure member-friendly Member Health Advisory Council website, which provides non-confidential protocols, new case developments and comments on case strategy. (For more information, please contact Hugh R. Young, Jr., President, at [email protected].) While these tools are useful to help lawyers understand what is happening in their respective industries, contributors to these sites should be warned that the plaintiffs` bar is known to serve corporate subpoenas for emails between competitors suggesting conspiracies or as a way to embarrass businesses. Recently, the First Department issued a succinct decision, in which it revoked a judgment of the first instance requiring the presentation of documents purportedly protected by solicitor-client privilege as part of a common interest agreement. In 21st Century Diamond, LLC v. Allfield Trading, LLC, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 05732 (here), the Court stated that “the doctrine of the common interest applies to protect the privileged communication between these parties from disclosure.” The court also rejected the argument that limiting the litigation exception “will create an abnormal result: clients who keep lawyers separate … Cannot protect their joint communications without pending litigation, but the same communications, made without litigation, would be privileged if [they] had simply hired a single lawyer to represent them in a non-similar context. Id. at 630-31. The court justified this decision by the fact that “[t]he common client or client … clients share, in a non-exhaustive manner, a complete orientation of interests so that the lawyer can represent both parties ethically.
There is therefore no doubt that clients will share a common identity and that all common communications will advance this common representation. Id. to 631 (quote omitted). But if clients keep lawyers separate to represent them in a matter of common legal interest, that is not the case. “It is less likely that the positions of the clients represented separately will be coordinated so that counsel acts as counsel for all, and the difficulty of determining whether clients represented separately share a sufficiently common legal interest becomes even more blunt outside the context of ongoing or expected litigation.” “Therefore, according to the Court, a limitation of the law is not necessary if the very fact of common representation alone is often sufficient to establish a congruence of interests, but it serves as a valuable protection against the separate parties who try to protect the communications exchanged against disclosure on the basis of an alleged commonality of legal interests. , but have only commercial or commercial interests to protect.” Id. (Quotes omitted). Given the lack of analysis by the First Division and the current solvency of the subject, today`s position, as part of a common interest agreement, will delve deeply into solicitor-client privilege. While solicitor-client privilege is generally limited to communications between a client and his or her lawyer that were not made in the presence of a third party or were subsequently passed on to a third party, the doctrine of common interest affords protection to confidential communications exchanged between separately represented parties, as long as they have been made with the aim of pursuing a common legal strategy.
 As a result, some legal orders have considered that the doctrine of the common interest in the protection of communications in the context of transactions, even if several parties are involved, is considered doctrinal.  Notwithstanding the restriction of the “trial” in New York, a number of other national and federal courts apply the doctrine of the common interest more broadly in commercial environments where the parties to a transaction have a common legal interest (for example. B, the completion of a merger).