Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 58 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Martin Schwimmer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Martin Schwimmer Anchor | green | “serves to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel.” | 38 |
| 2 | United States v. Martin Schwimmer | green | “the need to protect the free flow of information from client to attorney logically exists whenever multiple clients share a common interest about a legal matter.” | 13 |
| 3 | HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow | green | “if a communication is not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, the common interest doctrine does not apply.” | 4 |
| 4 | Lugosch v. Congel | green | “though not necessarily in writing, embodying a cooperative and common enterprise towards an identical legal strategy.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.