Texas Joint Defense Agreement Form

On Friday, June 29, 2012, the Texas Supreme Court rejected an application for mandamus discharge in In re XL Specialty Insurance Company and Cambridge Integrated Services, Group, Inc., No. 10-0960 (Tex). June 29, 2012) to clarify the scope of the common defense and the privileges of teaching in Texas. (The review is available here.) In a bad faith action brought by an aggrieved worker against a workers` insurer, the Court held that a common defence or common interest privilege did not apply to Texas rules of evidence in order to prevent the production of communications between the insurer`s lawyer and the employer during an underlying administrative proceeding. In this case, XL was the client, and the disputed communication ended between XL`s lawyer and a third party, Cintas, who was not represented by XL`s counsel (or any other lawyer) and was not involved in litigation or any other related pending action. The Court recognized that “Cintas [the insured/employer] who entered into a substantial franchise agreement may have shared, during the administrative proceedings, a common interest in the outcome of the law with XL.” However, the Court held that Rule 503 (b) (1) (C) communications were not privileged because “regardless of the frequency of XL and Cintas` interests, our rule requires that the notification be wiretapped to a lawyer or his representative representing another party in an pending appeal.” For more information on solicitor-client privileges in general, please contact: This decision does not only apply to lien litigation in Texas litigation, the judgment could also apply to federal federal cases subject to Texas material law. This decision may also have an impact on the insurance of the work allowance. For example, because the Court has clarified that the Texas rule of evidence limits the application of a lien of common interest to communications relating to a pending litigation, lawyers representing different parties with common or common interests in cases will not be able to invoke a privilege of common interest under Texas law to protect sensitive communications between their counsel outside the trial. In addition, a privilege of “common interest” must not protect communication between counsel for different parties about an investigation that is not related to an “ongoing action.” In addition, this decision raises privileges for communications made by a lawyer for an insured to the insurer in other insurance-related situations in which the insurer is not involved in pending litigation. I also confirm that I have the authority to sign this agreement on behalf of another agency that employs me and will do all work related to this commitment, retaining not only myself, but all other staff members of this institution, and that I will take appropriate steps to ensure that this other staff member respects the agreement that accompanies it.

shares