email disclaimers

[LyricalReckoner]

California

There's a law firm, but there’s no need to say which. Let’s just refer to it as The Firm.

Added to every e-mail message sent from the firm is a lengthy disclaimer, which includes this: "This email contains information from The Firm, which is confidential and/or privileged."

The Firm is being sued because an employee sent confidential information about a client to that client’s great foe (who benefited in a big way). At issue is the disclaimer.

Here’s a prediction: Since it was added to every message, even those that contained no ‘confidential and/or privileged’ information, the court rules that the disclaimer can’t be taken seriously. (The fact that even senior partners didn’t take it seriously came to light during discovery).

The ruling hasn’t come down yet and – so far as I know – the case hasn’t even been filed in any court, but that’s my prediction. After that, a lot of firms are going to review and revise their e-mail disclaimers.

Seem plausible?

 

[Some Random Guy]

So twhat if he disclaimer is added to every e-mail. The disclaimer is for those reading the email, not the sender.

The interesting part about your story is the what you left out. Was the e-mail intentionally sent to the foe, or was it accidentally sent? Was the e-mail addressed to the foe "Dear CIO of Foe" or to the client "Cear Mr. Client" and the foe should have known the e-mail was not for them.

 

[LyricalReckoner]

So twhat if he disclaimer is added to every e-mail.

That's precisely what makes it meaningless. Since it was automatically added to e-mail messages containing jokes, offers for baseball tickets to this Friday's big game, where happy hour is being celebrated, etc. no one (sender or receiver) can be expected to take it seriously.

 

[casa]

That's precisely what makes it meaningless. Since it was automatically added to e-mail messages containing jokes, offers for baseball tickets to this Friday's big game, where happy hour is being celebrated, etc. no one (sender or receiver) can be expected to take it seriously.

I believe that is an incorrect assumption. The disclaimer is there for a reason and is designed to address the receiver (person reading it). The issue in this case, 'should' be the inappropriate action of the employee who divulged the privileged information to the 'foe'.