When Receiving a Misdirected Email
It's sometimes true that ethics rules may defy common sense. Meaning, here, there may be adverse consequences to an attorney who receives a document not intended for him through absolutely no fault of his.
June 13, 2022 at 12:30 PM
8 minute read
If you've never sent—or, more pertinent here, never received—a wrongly directed email, you're simply living in a different time and place. Perhaps you communicate over a rotary phone or via tin cans connected by a long string. Maybe you only get and receive snail mail. Or you compose your missives over an antiquated Remington hunt-and-peck typewriter, and maybe use a fax machine to transmit them if you're really avant-garde. Possibly, by the way, you drink Ovaltine. Maybe, at bottom, you simply don't have an email account to speak of for some questionable and outmoded reason.
If you're in play with email, though, and receive such emails that are clearly unintended for you as a non-lawyer or have nothing to do with a legal representation (if you happen to be a lawyer), precisely how you deal with them is largely left to you alone. Or maybe, for those so ethically-inclined, with the guidance of the New York Times' Ethicist column or some hotline that deals with such personal ethics crises. The ethics at play, thus, for laypersons are largely left to their own personal sense of ethical propriety. (We often wonder precisely who writes asking advice from ethicist columns or hotlines—if you're so ethical, why can't you figure it out for yourself?)
Lawyers, though, are answerable to a higher authority. Actually, ethics rules directly address a lawyer's obligations when she inadvertently receives something that she shouldn't have received when she comes to realize that it wasn't intended for her. And maybe, in the extreme case, when the misdirected email or attachment totally undermines the legal or factual position of the adverse party in the litigation—for present purposes, in a criminal prosecution. Make no mistake—it does happen, and more frequently than one might suspect! So, what's the lawyer's obligation. The rule itself is pretty straightforward, at least in one respect. Rule 4.4(b) of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct, says: "A lawyer who receives a document, electronically stored information, or other writing relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that it was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender."
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 AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Elaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
- 4New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
- 5'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
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