Privilege, Email and the Case of the Careless Click
A collection of three cases from the past four years, discussed in this article, illustrates that email slip-ups are more common than one may think, and that even the briefest lapse in judgment or attention to detail can lead to highly problematic outcomes.
January 26, 2023 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Email has become an essential means of communication. But it presents fertile ground for mistakes and missteps by lawyers and clients who might compromise attorney-client privilege by hitting the "Send" button before taking adequate precautions as to the recipients, as well as for unintended recipients who encounter such a mistake. Privilege issues stemming from email blunders and carelessness can create serious concerns for counsel and their clients, with courts often having to determine whether the disclosure of communication impairs privilege.
A collection of three cases from the past four years, discussed below, illustrates that email slip-ups are more common than one may think, and that even the briefest lapse in judgment or attention to detail can lead to highly problematic outcomes. The trio of cases is only a small sampling of the pitfalls that may affect even the most prudent attorney, and should suggest caution as to what accidents to avoid and what steps to take to prevent loss of privilege.
Mistaken Recipient
When sending an email, the recipient field presents a threshold hazard zone. In Simmions v. Pierless Fish, 592 F. Supp. 3d 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2020), on the eve of mediation, defendants' counsel mistakenly sent an email intended for her client to plaintiffs' counsel, attaching specific litigation strategies and a detailed damages analysis. Defendants' counsel's client and plaintiffs' counsel had the same first name.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readCome Fly With Me: DOJ’s Proposed FARA Amendments and the Tourism Industry
10 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Quiet Retirement Meets Resounding Win: Quinn Emanuel Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan's Vimeo Victory
- 2Avoiding the Great Gen AI Wrecking Ball: Ignore AI’s Transformative Power at Your Own Risk
- 3A Lesson on the Value of Good Neighbors Amid the Tragedy of the LA Fires
- 4Change Is Coming in the Trump Era. For Big Law, Change Is Already Here
- 5Proskauer Partner Leaves for Fried Frank in London
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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