Ethical and Malpractice Considerations in Use of Email
As email has become ubiquitous, lawyers have found themselves enmeshed in a number of new concerns regarding ethics and liability. This article reviews a few of the concerns lawyers must consider in their use of email.
September 11, 2015 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
As email has become ubiquitous, lawyers have found themselves enmeshed in a number of new concerns regarding ethics and liability. This article reviews a few of the concerns lawyers must consider in their use of email.
|Informal Use of Email
Dashing off an email can be too easy. Before email existed, a lawyer occasionally sent a letter he or she regretted. It is much easier do the same thing with email. Disciplinary cases and malpractice claims have been aggravated by spur of the moment, hotheaded responses by email. In some cases, lawyers have discussed client situations involving potential malpractice or ethical concerns by email. Courts have often ruled such emails to be discoverable, particularly if the email conversations were not between a designated in-house counsel and lawyers involved with the matter. Emails sent in the course of a law practice should be as carefully drafted and considered, just like more formal documents.
|Email Confidentiality
In 1999, ABA Formal Opinion 99-413 suggested that lawyers did not need to encrypt email in most circumstances in order to reasonably rely on email for confidential communications with clients. The opinion generates a false sense of security about email. The ABA Opinion focuses on the security of email while in transit, but most confidentiality risks are related to retrieval, storage and infection of email. Given recent revelations about government monitoring of email, lawyers might consider encryption of the text of email itself in working with certain clients who may receive or retrieve email out of the country.
This content has been archived.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 AllWhat Is Exhibit J? Litigators Are Watching This AI Test Case
Replacing Attorney Review? Sidley's Experimental Assessment of GPT-4's Performance in Document Review
9 minute readSullivan & Cromwell's Investments in AI Lead to Discovery, Deposition 'Assistants'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Tech's Predictions for Knowledge Management in 2025
- 2Fenwick Shutters Shanghai Office
- 3Litigators of the (Past) Week: Defending Against a $290M Claim and Scoring a $116M Win in Drug Patent Fight
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Am Law 50's Head Count 'Holding Pattern' Could Trickle Down
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