In Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently adopted the common-interest doctrine which preserves attorney client privilege over communications and work product shared with third parties who share a common legal interest. The decision adds to the growing consensus in state and federal courts recognizing the need for joint-defense privilege protections so attorneys can effectively represent their clients and communicate with third parties.
In this University of St. Thomas Law Journal article, partner George Singer provides analyzes the history of attorney client privilege and the evolution of the joint client exception or common interest doctrine, the Court's reasoning in Ellison, criteria that must be met, and practical considerations for attorneys to preserve common interest privilege.
Read the full article here: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj/vol19/iss3/8/
This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.