Common Interest Agreement Pitfalls

Clients and lawyers can benefit from the options developed by the courts, including common defence or common interest privilege. In Acceleration Bay, the claimant argued that the funding of the proceedings provides funds to provide, promote or provide legal representation. Acceleration duct at *8. The applicant also argued that a legal community could exist between a patent holder and a promoter of proceedings relating to the work product privilege. See id. (citing Carlyle Inv. Mgmt. L.L.C. v. Moonmouth Co. S.A., 2015 WL 778846, at *7 (Del. Ch. Feb.

24, 2015)). However, since the Carlyle case dealt exclusively with the issue of work product, the court found that the Carlyle case was not commensurate with solicitors` privilege. Acceleration duct at *8. [1] See Port of Portland v. Oregon Ctr. for Envtl. Health, 238 Or App 404, 414, 243 P3d 102, 109 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 230 (2011) (“OECD 503 (2) (c) suggests that interests should be shared between the parties, but not necessarily identical.”). In addition to characterizations and exclusions of liability, you should avoid taking actions that can be interpreted as an attorney-client relationship. Indeed, even seemingly harmless behavior can lead to an implicit attorney-client relationship. It is not uncommon for members of joint advocacy groups to participate in hearings on behalf of other members.

. . .