E-mail Emergencies
The fastest growing form of communication might also be the most dangerous for companies. Legal technology expert Brett Burney gives his take on e-mail risks and how you can avoid them.
January 08, 2008 at 07:00 PM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It doesn't take long to grow weary of the army of e-discovery products that promise to preserve, analyze and organize your company's e-mail factories. Each product has a legitimate cause to fight for, but no software can fully protect a company from the rascally typing fingers of its own employees.
E-mail is a crucial and frugal communication tool in today's professional world. Phone calls can take too much time and no one wants to waste a stamp when you can just hit “Send” instead.
Unfortunately, e-mail's ease of use frequently invites an appalling relaxation of standards. Employees perceive their electronic conversations as temporal, private, anonymous, and intimate–hardly anyone considers an e-mail message the same as a printed letter on embossed company letterhead.
In other words, people will say anything in an e-mail. People are tremendously cavalier and neglectful when authoring e-mail messages. Because of this, e-mails routinely become the veritable “smoking gun” in contemporary litigation matters.
Consider, for example, the seminal e-discovery Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC opinions where an HR supervisor's e-mail revealed that the company intended to “exit” Ms. Zubulake “ASAP” in part so she would not be eligible for “bonus consideration.”
You may also recall the oft-quoted e-mail from the Linnen v. A.H. Robbins Co. “Fen-Phen” case where an employee of the pharmaceutical company lamented how he would spend his “waning years writing checks to fat people worried about a silly lung problem.”
These examples and countless others reveal a glaring need for risk management that cannot be solely solved by e-discovery or e-mail archival software. Applications can flag keywords and routinely delete unnecessary e-mails, but they can't stop employees from typing ignorant and regrettable things.
A strict e-mail usage policy is a primary step in addressing potential e-mail chaos. Employees must be prohibited from using offensive language in an e-mail and no one should be allowed to use the company e-mail system for personal reasons (and vice-versa).
The rules on e-mail use should graft comfortably on to a well-designed and rigid records retention policy. Superfluous e-mails should be consistently destroyed while potentially relevant messages should be pristinely preserved. This is much easier said than done, but established policies will supervise any errant e-mail habits.
Policies are meaningless when employees are unaware they exist. Routine training is a necessary and annoying evil, but proactive measures can save the company from looking down the barrel of that “smoking gun.”
The permanence of an e-mail message must be stressed emphatically and constantly. A handwritten note can be completely obliterated by shredding or burning, yet most people agree that a tangible note embodies an aura of permanence. Ironically, the same folks are flippant and careless in what they write in an e-mail message even though their words can live in digital permanence on their computer, the recipient's computer, an e-mail server, or backup tapes.
To help envision the eternal nature of e-mail, imagine that every word you type is read by your boss; imagine your e-mail message blown up on a large screen in a courtroom; or imagine the embarrassment at reading your e-mail in a major newspaper. Simply put, don't say anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't say in person, or that you couldn't print out on a company letterhead.
Personnel and personal discussions are best done “offline”–on the phone or in person rather than permanently solidified in an e-mail thread. This may seem like a step down the technology ladder, but that only means the climb will be less risky.
It doesn't take long to grow weary of the army of e-discovery products that promise to preserve, analyze and organize your company's e-mail factories. Each product has a legitimate cause to fight for, but no software can fully protect a company from the rascally typing fingers of its own employees.
E-mail is a crucial and frugal communication tool in today's professional world. Phone calls can take too much time and no one wants to waste a stamp when you can just hit “Send” instead.
Unfortunately, e-mail's ease of use frequently invites an appalling relaxation of standards. Employees perceive their electronic conversations as temporal, private, anonymous, and intimate–hardly anyone considers an e-mail message the same as a printed letter on embossed company letterhead.
In other words, people will say anything in an e-mail. People are tremendously cavalier and neglectful when authoring e-mail messages. Because of this, e-mails routinely become the veritable “smoking gun” in contemporary litigation matters.
Consider, for example, the seminal e-discovery Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC opinions where an HR supervisor's e-mail revealed that the company intended to “exit” Ms. Zubulake “ASAP” in part so she would not be eligible for “bonus consideration.”
You may also recall the oft-quoted e-mail from the Linnen v. A.H. Robbins Co. “Fen-Phen” case where an employee of the pharmaceutical company lamented how he would spend his “waning years writing checks to fat people worried about a silly lung problem.”
These examples and countless others reveal a glaring need for risk management that cannot be solely solved by e-discovery or e-mail archival software. Applications can flag keywords and routinely delete unnecessary e-mails, but they can't stop employees from typing ignorant and regrettable things.
A strict e-mail usage policy is a primary step in addressing potential e-mail chaos. Employees must be prohibited from using offensive language in an e-mail and no one should be allowed to use the company e-mail system for personal reasons (and vice-versa).
The rules on e-mail use should graft comfortably on to a well-designed and rigid records retention policy. Superfluous e-mails should be consistently destroyed while potentially relevant messages should be pristinely preserved. This is much easier said than done, but established policies will supervise any errant e-mail habits.
Policies are meaningless when employees are unaware they exist. Routine training is a necessary and annoying evil, but proactive measures can save the company from looking down the barrel of that “smoking gun.”
The permanence of an e-mail message must be stressed emphatically and constantly. A handwritten note can be completely obliterated by shredding or burning, yet most people agree that a tangible note embodies an aura of permanence. Ironically, the same folks are flippant and careless in what they write in an e-mail message even though their words can live in digital permanence on their computer, the recipient's computer, an e-mail server, or backup tapes.
To help envision the eternal nature of e-mail, imagine that every word you type is read by your boss; imagine your e-mail message blown up on a large screen in a courtroom; or imagine the embarrassment at reading your e-mail in a major newspaper. Simply put, don't say anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't say in person, or that you couldn't print out on a company letterhead.
Personnel and personal discussions are best done “offline”–on the phone or in person rather than permanently solidified in an e-mail thread. This may seem like a step down the technology ladder, but that only means the climb will be less risky.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250