The NAM filed a brief urging the Minnesota Supreme Court to reaffirm the common-interest doctrine—an extension of the attorney-client privilege that applies to communications between two or more parties that have agreed to coordinate a legal strategy—on the heels of a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that categorically denied the existence of the doctrine in-state. The NAM and its members routinely rely on the common-interest doctrine in a variety of contexts, including when they solicit bids from law firms for a common client group or in coordinating legal strategy on matters of shared interests. The NAM’s brief argues that the common-interest privilege advances the same goals as the attorney-client privilege: ensuring that attorneys are able to provide fulsome and candid legal advice to their clients. Affirming the common-interest doctrine, as over 90% of jurisdictions have done, would encourage cooperation and coordination, reduce litigation costs and improve the administration of justice.
Happily, on September 28, 2022, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Minnesota Court of Appeals and recognized the common-interest doctrine as applicable to the attorney work product privilege and attorney-client privilege. In its decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court explained that the doctrine can be applicable "in a litigated or non-litigated matter" where "two or more parties, represented by separate lawyers, have a common legal interest" but is inapplicable for "a purely commercial, political, or policy interest."