Have you effectively used the common interest rule in your practice? There are not many reported decisions in New Jersey relating to the common interest rule. This article will primarily focus on the use of this rule in civil litigation. The seminal case with respect to the use of this rule is LaPorta v. Gloucester County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 340 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001).
In LaPorta, one of the issues analyzed by the court was whether the attorney-client privilege was waived. In doing so, the court noted that the “common interest doctrine … protects communications made to a non-party who shares the client’s interests.” LaPorta, 340 N.J. Super. at 261. The common interest rule can be applied regarding communications between counsel for different parties if “(1) the disclosure is made due to actual or anticipated litigation; (2) for the purposes of furthering a common interest; and (3) the disclosure is made in a manner not inconsistent with maintaining confidentiality against adverse parties.” Id. at 262 (quoting Holland v. Island Creek Corp., 885 F. Supp. 4, 6 (D.D.C. 1995)).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
