Skip to content
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT US
Search
Close
anthony ostlund logo
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
Menu
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS

Minnesota Formally Recognizes the Common Interest Doctrine

  • October 19, 2022

Minnesota Lawyer and Finance & Commerce – Partner Content

Author: Joseph T. Janochoski

 

In legal disputes between sophisticated business parties—particularly between numerous sophisticated business parties—a client and a third party may end up sharing a similar legal interest in the dispute.  In situations where a single plaintiff sues multiple business entities on the same subject matter, for example, the client and the third party co-defendant may have similar interests in the litigation.  As we have seen many times in our practice, those parties may, for the sake of efficiency, wish to work together in defending the case, even by sharing legal strategies.

 

Before sharing those documents, however, litigants must ask themselves an important question: can parties with common legal interests share communications and strategies they have received from their counsel without waiving their attorney-client privilege?  In many parts of the country, the answer to that question is “yes,” under what is frequently referred to as the Common Interest Doctrine.  In a recent decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison, ___ N.W.2d ___, 2022 WL 4488489 (Minn. Sept. 28, 2022), the Court formally recognized the doctrine in Minnesota.

 

It is important to understand the significance of the Common Interest Doctrine and how it relates to longstanding attorney-client privilege and work production protections enjoyed by clients.  One of the oldest traditions in law is the attorney-client privilege: when a client seeks legal advice from their attorney, the attorney-client privilege protects those communications from disclosure to third parties.  This bedrock of the profession has even been codified by Minnesota statute.  See Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(b).  Similarly, the work-product doctrine prevents disclosure to third parties of documents prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, as well as the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of attorneys concerning litigation.  The communications and work produced under the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine are, by their very nature, confidential; in most situations, they are not intended to be disclosed to third parties.  Where disclosure of the communications or work product is made to a third party, however, the attorney-client privilege or work product protections are generally waived.

 

The Common Interest Doctrine is an exception to this rule.  Under the doctrine, attorney-client and work-product protections are not waived when two or more parties with a common legal interest in a litigated or non-litigated matter are represented by separate lawyers and they agree to exchange information.  While the parties may choose to recognize their common interests through a formal agreement of some sort, a formal statement of an existing common interest is generally not required.  No jurisdiction to have considered whether to recognize the Doctrine appears to have ever rejected it.  Minnesota’s federal courts have recognized the Doctrine, and now, Minnesota state courts have done so as well.

 

In Energy Policy Advocates, the non-profit plaintiff requested certain data from the Office of the Attorney General (the “AG”) under the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act; the AG declined, citing (among other reasons) the Common Interest Doctrine.  2022 WL 4488489, at *2.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the AG’s application of the Doctrine, noting that the Doctrine had never been formally recognized in Minnesota, and that the responsibility to do so belonged to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Id. at *2–3.

 

On review, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue, noting that numerous other states and federal circuits had already recognized the doctrine.  Id. at *2-3.  It was time for Minnesota to do the same.  Id.  The Court defined the contours of the doctrine as follows:

 

“We hold that, in Minnesota, the common-interest doctrine applies when (1) two or more parties, (2) represented by separate lawyers, (3) have a common legal interest (4) in a litigated or non-litigated matter, (5) the parties agree to exchange information concerning the matter, and (6) they make an otherwise privileged communication in furtherance of formulating a joint legal strategy.  This formulation is generally consistent with the common-interest doctrine’s requirements in the federal courts for Minnesota, as well as the Restatement.” Id. at *4.

 

The Court noted that in addition to privileged communications, the doctrine also encompassed “attorney work product”, but restricted the scope of the doctrine to cover only “common legal interests” not “purely commercial, political, or policy interest[s.]”  Id. (emphasis added).

 

The Energy Policy Advocates decision is an important one for Minnesota.  As the U.S. Supreme Court has observed, “[a]n uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.”  Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 (1981).  By formally recognizing the Common Interest Doctrine in Minnesota—and describing its contours—the Minnesota Supreme Court has brought much needed clarity to an important issue that frequently arises in complex business disputes in this state.

 

View as PDF.

related attorneys

Loading...

Joseph T. Janochoski

related practice areas

Loading...
AO-logo-initials

90 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 3600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
P 612.349.6969       F 612.349.6996

 

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

  • 651•312•6500
  • 651•312•6618
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
search
disclaimer
Linkedin
Join Our Email List

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT