EMAIL, PRIVILEGE, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

By

Rebecca J. Foote

Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P., New York, N.Y.

 

Communication via electronic mail (“email”) has become commonplace in the US and the use of email for international communication grows each day.  Email offers several advantages over other methods of communication, including the ease and convenience of preparation and speed of transmission, all at relatively inexpensive cost.   Email, however, carries with it security risks, including inadvertent misaddressing, interception and malicious dissemination as exemplified by recent email remailing computer viruses.

 

Given email’s practical advantages, businessmen and professionals such as lawyers who deal in privileged information have embraced email as an often used means for communicating even sensitive, confidential and legally privileged material.  The nature of email allows for even a casual responsive message to carry along with it detailed, confidential matter and communications.  Email users tend be use email informally, at times much as if it were a face-to-face, private conversation.  Some users express thoughts and opinions using phraseology they may not necessarily have used had they given careful thought to their words and the various interpretations which others might place upon them. 

 

An email may also contain a whole series of electronic messages between or among two or more parties, such as when the parties have been “replying” to the other’s messages rather than creating a “new message.”  Disclosure of an email risks disclosure of an entire dialogue between senders.

 

In addition to the security risk of interception over the Internet or of virus-driven malicious dissemination, one false keystroke could send an email intended for one recipient to an improper recipient or even an entire class of improper recipients.  Such a risk could spring from inadvertently hitting “send” after selecting the wrong address or email group from a stored address book of possible recipients.

 

Given the foregoing risks, a writer of email should be cognizant that his or her communication might be read by unintended persons.  Some advocate the use of encrypted email whenever privileged or trade secret information is to be communicated.  Yet, there are practical issues associated with encryption (which are beyond the scope of this article) and in actual practice most attorney-client and business email is sent unencrypted.

 

In view of the disclosure risk associated with email, this article addresses the legal principles that determine when a non-deliberate disclosure of legally protected information will strip it of protection.  While protected information can exist in a variety of contexts, this article focuses on attorney-client privileged material and trade secrets, although analogies can be drawn to other contexts, such as “insider” information and the securities laws, and patient health information and the health care provider privilege and medical privacy.

 

Legally Speaking, May Unencrypted Email Be Used For The Transmission of Confidential Information?

 

To be privileged, information conveyed to a lawyer must be communicated in confidence, and not in the presence of third parties.  With respect to trade secrets, the information must be handled in a fashion that reasonably assures its confidentiality.

 

Email must pass through several computers (or servers) en route to its intended recipient. Multiple places exist where the email message could be intercepted and scrutinized by anyone with sufficient technical skills. Additionally, service providers may legally view a message which passes through their servers. How, then, could anyone expect privacy when sending and receiving unencrypted email?

 

The law’s focus, thus far, has been on the reasonableness of the expectation of privacy.  The law has treated unencrypted telephone communications as partaking of a reasonable expectation of privacy even though phones and phone lines can be tapped and microwave and satellite relays intercepted.  Although no high level court has addressed the issue in a major opinion, the published authorities treat email as another aspect of telecommunications.    

 

The Federal Communications Act of 1934 (“FCA”) prohibits unauthorized publication or interception of radio or telephone communications.  While the FCA does not explicitly address modern forms of non-voice electronic communications, support for the confidentiality of email has been found in law which was designed to protect cellular telephone communications, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.^[i]  Using language broad enough to include email communications, the ECPA prohibits “intentionally intercept[ing], endeavor[ing] to intercept, or procur[ing] any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication.”^[ii]  Additionally, the ECPA expressly states that “no otherwise privileged wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted  . . .  shall lose its privileged character.”^[iii]

 

Citing the ECPA, state bar opinions on the subject of attorney-client privilege and email reflect a consensus that lawyers and clients can use regular email for privileged communications without the need for any specialized encryption.^[iv]  Additionally, the American Bar Association has also issued an extensive opinion approving of email for confidential and privileged communications:

 

The Committee believes that e-mail communications, including those sent unencrypted over the Internet, pose no greater risk of interception or disclosure than other modes of communication commonly relied upon as having a reasonable expectation of privacy. The level of legal protection accorded e‑mail transmissions, like that accorded other modes of electronic communication, also supports the reasonableness of an expectation of privacy for unencrypted e‑mail transmissions. The risk of unauthorized interception and disclosure exists in every medium of communication, including e‑mail. It is not, however, reasonable to require that a mode of communicating information must be avoided simply because interception is technologically possible, especially when unauthorized interception or dissemination of the information is a violation of law.

 

The Committee concludes, based upon current technology and law as we are informed of it, that a lawyer sending confidential client information by unencrypted e‑mail does not violate Model Rule 1.6(a)[ the ethical obligation to protect information relating to representation of a client] in choosing that mode to communicate. This is principally because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in its use.^[v]

 

Although Bar advisory opinions are not law, they provide a level of comfort that the mere use of email to communicate a confidential matter will not deprive it of legal protection that would otherwise exist.  Court opinions in other contexts support that conclusion.  In United States v. Maxwell, the court recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in email messages for Fourth Amendment search and seizure purposes.^[vi]  The Maxwell court’s analysis compared email with other available means of communication.^[vii]  The Maxwell court noted that senders of regular mail can reasonably expect the contents to remain confidential, as only with a search warrant may the police intercept and read such communications.^[viii]  Similarly, persons using the telephone have a reasonable expectation that the police will not intercept and listen to a conversation without a warrant. The Maxwell court concluded that the sender of email enjoys a reasonable expectation that the initial transmission will not be intercepted by the police.^[ix]  Furthermore, possible interception by an unauthorized individual does diminish the expectation of privacy in any way.^[x]

 

In a subsequent decision, the Court continued the analogy of email to face-to-face communication.  Just as open remarks in a public meeting are not confidential, a year after Maxwell, the court in United States v. Charbonneau held that “conversations” in chat rooms are not afforded the same reasonable expectation of privacy as emails sent between individuals.^[xi] Adopting the Maxwell court’s analysis, the Charbonneau court concluded that while initial email transmissions enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy, “‘[m]essages sent to the public at large in a ‘chat room’ . . . lose any semblance of privacy.’”^[xii]

 

Additionally, recent cases which involve the attorney-client privilege and the disclosure of emails have not made any distinction between emails and any other documents.^[xiii] Thus, courts are apparently treating emails in the same fashion as conventional documents when determining whether the documents are protected by the attorney‑client privilege. 

 

From the above decisions, it appears that, when email communication would otherwise meet the requirements necessary to partake of confidential or privileged treatment in the law, the fact that the communication took the form of unencrypted email will not in itself negate the element of confidentiality.  Even though judicial opinions supporting that proposition remain sparse, in actual practice clients, lawyers, and governmental agencies now routinely use email to transmit information which they consider legally protected as confidential or privileged.

 

Will the Privilege Be Waived Through Inadvertent Disclosure?       

 

Assuming that future cases continue the trend that holds email may be used to transmit privileged information without its losing its legal protection, what happens when email is intercepted or maliciously disseminated, as though a virus, or is sent inadvertently to the wrong person?

 

A communication must be “confidential” for the attorney-client privilege to attach, but once the privilege has attached it can be waived either by intentional acts of the client or through inadvertent disclosure.^[xiv]  Assuming email passes the confidentiality test in order for privilege to attach, what unintended interception, if any, will waive the privilege?

 

Although the law in relation to inadvertent disclosures of information falling within the attorney-client privilege has generally evolved such that inadvertent disclosure does not waive the privilege, no nationwide or worldwide law of privilege exists.  Courts have employed different approaches when determining the effect of inadvertent disclosure to the issue of waiver of the privilege.  Prudence thus dictates that the law in this area be considered unsettled. 

 

Some case law takes a “no waiver” approach. Courts using this approach hold that an inadvertent disclosure will not waive the privilege, based on the premise that waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right.  Thus, as inadvertent disclosure cannot be intentional, the privilege is not waived.^[xv]  Courts which use the no waiver approach have, for example, refused to find waiver where privileged documents, which had been marked as such with tabs that fell off somewhere in the copying process, were produced to opposing counsel,^[xvi] and where an attorney accidentally left a privileged memorandum in a box of documents for the opposing counsel to review^[xvii].  Courts who utilize this approach also reason that as the privilege belongs to the client and is recognized to protect the client, more than negligence on the part of counsel should be required before the privilege is waived.^[xviii] 

 

The minority position, taken by fewer courts, finds that any disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise, results in a waiver of the privilege.^[xix]  This is sometimes referred to as the “strict accountability” approach.  These courts reason that because a privilege interferes with a court’s ability to determine the truth, a privilege must be narrowly confined to communications that remain confidential, and that once confidentiality ceases to exist the foundation of the privilege is gone.^[xx]

 

 At present, a majority of courts apply the third approach which employs a balancing test based upon five factors.^[xxi]  The factors to be considered in determining whether the circumstances of an inadvertent disclosure warrant waiver of the attorney‑client privilege are: (1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) time taken to rectify the error; (3) scope of discovery; (4) extent of disclosure; and (5) the overriding issue of fairness.^[xxii]  With respect to privileged information sent via email which is illegally intercepted, the first element is most significant to the determination. Critics of this approach argue that the fact that a disclosure occurred in and of itself demonstrate that counsel failed to take adequate precautions.^[xxiii]  Courts applying this approach, however, have reasoned that just as the tort defendant who acts in a reasonably prudent manner avoids liability, an attorney who exercises reasonable precautions to protect confidential information and acts quickly and competently to rectify a disclosure error may avoid waiver even though the disclosure occurred.^[xxiv]

 

As with the issue of whether the communication is confidential, the same reasonable expectation of privacy analysis applies to the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure.  If the holder of the privilege reasonably believes that his method of communication was private, interception by a third party unknown to the holder should not waive the privilege.  Since interception of email is prohibited under the ECPA, emails between attorneys and clients should be considered reasonably secure for purposes of the attorney‑client privilege. Although the ECPA does not eliminate the possibility of illegal interception, it does make interception a crime.  In addition, although the ECPA permits service providers to lawfully monitor email transmissions in the ordinary course of business, disclosure of any information is prohibited.  Thus, a person using email should be able to rely on the proposition that email provides a reasonable expectation of privacy even though it is possible to illegally intercept email communications.

 

Yet, while there may be no finding of waiver in cases where an email is illegally intercepted or misdirected through no fault of the sender, what about the situation, which is infinitely more likely than illegal interception, where one false keystroke sends your confidential email to an unintended recipient, perhaps opposing counsel?  This presents a much more difficult question, and, again, one which has not yet been answered by the courts.  The cases examining inadvertent disclosures due to the negligence of attorneys call into doubt whether an attorney who makes such a mistake could effectively argue against waiver of the privilege.

 

The Southern District of New York has consistently applied the five factor balancing test.^[xxv]  However, the outcome of the test is not so consistent. 

 

In Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais S.A., the district court refused to find waiver where privileged documents were included in a production due to a “clerical error” by paralegals.^[xxvi] Applying the factors, the district court found that: 1) the precautions taken by counsel were all that were to be expected (counsel had given the paralegals specific instructions); 2) counsel acted quickly to rectify the situation and the documents were marked as “privileged” so opposing counsel was immediately on notice that they were subject to privilege; 3) the scope of this discovery was immense; 4) the disclosure was relatively minor; 5) it would not be unfair to opposing counsel to deny use of the documents at trial. Conversely, in Bank Brussels Lambert v. Chase Manhattan Bank, the Southern District of New York held that waiver was effected where a paralegal mistakenly produced documents to plaintiff’s counsel which had been set aside in a separate envelope by defendant’s attorney.^[xxvii]  Applying the factors, the court first noted that the precautions taken by the attorney failed on two levels.  First, the privileged materials fell into the hands of opposing counsel and, second, the documents were not adequately labeled as privileged to put opposing counsel on notice of their confidential nature.^[xxviii]  The next factor, time taken to rectify the error, also favored waiver, for the defendant waited for months to assert privilege even though it was made aware of the inadvertent disclosure almost immediately.^[xxix]  The District Court added that while the extent of the disclosure was not great, neither was the scope of disclosure, and denying the plaintiff use of the disclosed documents would be unfair as they immediately informed defendant’s counsel that the documents had been disclosed and defendant failed to move for a protective order until seven months later.^[xxx]  Consequently, the district court found that the inadvertent disclosure did result in waiver of the attorney client privilege.^[xxxi]

 

A recent case in the Southern District of New York did involve an email, however, it was already in its printed form when it was inadvertently produced.^[xxxii]  In Johnson v. Sea-Land Service, early in the litigation plaintiff sent an email message containing confidential information to his attorney’s law firm.^[xxxiii]  Then, in response to a deposition notice, plaintiff flew from Florida to New York a day or two before his deposition, where his attorney and he reviewed over three hundred documents in order to provide defendant with the discovery he requested in connection with the deposition.^[xxxiv]  During the deposition, the plaintiff’s attorney noticed that the email was attached to one of the documents, informed his adversary of the email’s privileged status and its inadvertent production, and retrieved the email.^[xxxv]  However, apparently another copy of the email had also been included in the production which plaintiff’s attorney only learned when advised of the fact by defendant several weeks after the deposition.^[xxxvi]

 

The Johnson court noted that “[i]nadvertent production will not waive the privilege unless the conduct of the producing party or counsel evinced such extreme carelessness as to suggest that it was not concerned with the protection of the privilege.”^[xxxvii] The Johnson court found that the failure to discover and withhold the email was at most careless, but did not evince such extreme carelessness as to suggest that plaintiff was not concerned with the protection of his privileged communications.^[xxxviii]  The Johnson court further noted that while delay in claiming the privilege may result in a waiver, the length of the delay should be measured from the time the producing party learns of the disclosure, not from the time of the disclosure itself.^[xxxix]  Finally, the District Court commented that while that the scope of this discovery (300 documents) was minor compared to many of the gargantuan document productions in other litigations, it was not an insignificant amount of documents, and that it could not conclude that it would be unfair to the defendant to preclude use of the email.^[xl] Consequently, the Johnson court held that the inadvertent disclosure did not result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.^[xli]

 

In other jurisdictions which apply the five factor balancing test in cases dealing with waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the result is also highly dependant on the facts of the specific case.  A North Carolina district court, holding that an inadvertent disclosure did result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, stated that “[g]enerally, when no special efforts are made to ensure confidentiality...inadvertent production of documents pursuant to a discovery request waives any privilege.”^[xlii]   Similarly, a Massachusetts district court in Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. found waiver of the attorney-client privilege as the result of an inadvertent disclosure to opposing counsel.^[xliii]  The disclosure in Amgen occurred after an outside copy service had copied four small boxes which had been set aside by producing counsel as containing all privileged documents.^[xliv]  The Amgen court noted that it would have been reasonable for an attorney to review the copying once received back from the service and prior to the production.^[xlv]  Furthermore, the Amgen court pointed to the fact that it took producing counsel five days to recognize its error and then only because opposing counsel alerted him to the fact that the documents had been produced.  In Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Sandoz, Ltd., et al., a New Jersey district court found waiver of the attorney-client privilege where defendant twice produced copies of a privileged internal memorandum, since the defendant had failed to conduct any review of the documents, believing that local counsel had conducted a review, defendants failed to act quickly to rectify the production error once it learned of the production, and the privileged documents were a substantial part of a relatively small production.^[xlvi]

 

Waiver of Trade Secret Rights Through Disclosure via Email

 

The protection of intellectual property rights is another consideration for lawyers, and for the individuals or corporations which own the rights, when using email.  There have been numerous viruses circulated during the past year which in one way or another foul up the unlucky recipients email.  Just one example is “VBS.Helvis”, a virus that uses Microsoft Outlook to send the affected user’s email to an outside account.^[xlvii]  Obviously, a virus such as this (as well as the aforementioned human errors) can result in the disclosure of trade secrets or other intellectual property. 

 

“ Trade secrets” are only protected when they are not generally known to the relevant people, i.e. potential competitors.^[xlviii]  Conversely, “information that is generally known or readily ascertainable through proper means by others...is not protectable as a trade secret”.^[xlix]

 

In Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bieron Corp.,^[l] the U.S. Supreme Court explained that: “The protection accorded the trade secret holder is against the disclosure or unauthorized use of the trade secret by those to whom the secret has been confided under the express or implied restriction of nondisclosure or nonuse. The law also protects the holder of a trade secret against disclosure or use when the knowledge is gained, not by the owner’s volition, but by some ‘improper means,’ Restatement of Torts §757(a), which may include theft, wiretapping, or even aerial reconnaissance. A trade secret law, however, does not offer protection against discovery by fair and honest means, such as by independent invention, accidental disclosure, or by so-called reverse engineering, that is by starting with the known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture.” (Emphasis added)

 

Consequently, the emailing of a message or document containing a trade secret to unintended recipient could result in the loss of the property right.  Malicious dissemination by a hacker or because of a virus introduced into one’s network may not technically waive the “trade secret” character of information, and a holder of a trade secret may have a cause of action for damages against a party who intentionally disclosed the secret (so long as they meet the legal definition of a misappropriator).  However, such a party may be difficult to identify or may lack assets and the damage which may result from lose of the trade secret protection may not be quantifiable or adequately covered by monetary damages.

 

Similar issues exist in the context of attorney-client privilege, although the damage there is more likely to be one of embarrassment.  Because the attorney-client privilege is evidentiary in nature, even if the communication is unduly disseminated, there are means to prevent the use of the information as evidence at trial.  But, trade secrets differ in that once an “innocent” competitor receives them, effective remedies against that competitor’s use of the information may not be found to exist.

 

The issue of whether the posting of trade secrets on the Internet results in loss of the property right was discussed in Religious Technology Center v. Netcom Online Communication Services, Inc.^[li]  In this case, two Church of Scientology-affiliated organizations which claimed trade secret protection for the writings of the Church’s founder, brought suit against a defendant who allegedly posted the protected works on the Internet for misappropriation of the trade secrets. ^[lii]  However, the defendant argued that as he received some of the information from an anonymous public post on a newsgroup Internet site and that since this was a public source the information should lose its trade secret protection.^[liii]

 

The Religious Technology Center court stated that more than 25 million people could have viewed this posting and that those with an interest in using the church’s trade secrets were likely to look to this news group.^[liv] Consequently, the Religious Technology Center court concluded that posting works to the Internet makes them “generally known to the relevant people.”^[lv]   Nevertheless, the court acknowledged the potential problems with its holding:

 

The court is troubled by the notion that any Internet user, including those using “anonymous remailers” to protect their identity, can destroy valuable intellectual property rights by posting them over the Internet, especially given the fact that there is little opportunity to screen the postings before they are made.  Nonetheless, one of the Internet’s virtues, that it gives even the poorest individuals the power to publish to millions of readers, can also be a detriment to the value of intellectual property rights.  The anonymous (or judgment proof) defendant can permanently destroy valuable trade secrets, leaving no one to hold liable for the misappropriation.^[lvi]

 

Furthermore, while the court was persuaded by the plaintiffs that whoever made the original postings gained access to the information through improper means (i.e. giving rise to a claim for misappropriation), this does not negate the finding that once posted, the works lose their secrecy, and there was no evidence that this defendant had anything to do with the original misappropriators.^[lvii]

 

The Religious Technology Center court did not have the final say in the matter.  In Religious Technology Center v. Netcom Online Communication Services, Inc. the court revisited its findings in relation to the secrecy of the plaintiffs’ trade secrets.^[lviii]  The court held that its statement in the 1995 case that “posting works on the Internet makes them generally known to the relevant people” is an overly broad generalization.  The court continued to state that the question of when an Internet posting causes the lose of trade secret protection requires a review of the circumstances surrounding the posting, consideration of the interests of the owner of the trade secret, the policies favoring competition, and the interests, including first amendment rights, of innocent third parties who acquire information from the Internet.^[lix]

 

More recently the California state courts examined the issue in a series of decisions, beginning with DVD Copy Control Ass’n, Inc. v. McLaughlin.^[lx]  There, the licensor of an encryption system to protect copyrighted materials stored on DVDs sued to enjoin a web site’s posting of algorithms and master keys to this system. The trial court rejected a literal reading of Religious Technology Center, and held that the posting of the trade secret on the Internet did not destroy its status as a legally protected property right.  The trial court stated “[t]o hold otherwise would do nothing less than encourage misappropriaters of trade secrets to post the fruits of their wrongdoing on the Internet as quickly as possible and as widely as possible thereby destroying a trade secret forever.  Such a holding would not be prudent in this age of the Internet.”  The trial court further noted that the plaintiff had moved quickly and reasonably to protect its proprietary information as soon as it discovered that the information had been disclosed. 

 

However, in DVD Copy Control Ass’n, Inc. v. Bunner, the California Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s preliminary injunction.^[lxi] The Court of Appeals found that the web site posting was “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment and that the plaintiff’s interest in protecting its trade secret pending trial could not justify a prior restraint on defendant’s publication of the information.  The California Supreme Court then left the matter unanswered, ruling in Pavlovich v. Superior Court^[lxii] that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

 

Conclusion

 

No form of communication is completely secure, as each may be lost, intercepted, or inadvertently disclosed. Case law strongly supports the conclusion that, so long as prompt action is taken to assert a claim of privilege or trade secret status, privileged information in an intercepted email or email unintentionally released by a virus sent to its author or intended recipient will be protected from use in evidence and trade secrets retain their legally protected character. 

 

Including a disclaimer with each email message may also protect privileged information and, as the case law discussed indicates, may weigh in favor of a finding of no waiver.  A disclaimer lets the recipient know that the email message contains confidential information and that if the email is inadvertently sent to an unintended recipient, the email should not be read, copied or forwarded.  Disclaimers are virtually cost free and this easy, and potentially determinative, method of protection is recommended for emails that contain confidential information

 

But, the accidental sending of a trade secret to the wrong recipient might result in its losing trade secret protection.  Significant issues also exist if someone posts the information on the Internet, both legal and practical.

 

In view of these issues, those who use email should avoid the temptation to treat email as a casual means of communication.  They should also weigh the costs, advantages, and difficulties of technological barriers such as network security including strong passwords, anti-virus software, firewalls, and the use of encryption software for external and internal email. 

 

Most companies utilize anti-virus software and detection systems.  It is a good idea to keep these up to date so as to minimize the risk that a virus will maliciously disseminate confidential email and alert employees if any viruses have been detected.  Network security and the use of strong passwords reduce the risk of intruder access. Firewalls come in various configurations and at varying costs.  They provide varying degrees of protection against intruder access to networked information. 

 

With respect to encryption, the sender and all receiving parties must utilize compatible software and care must be taken to assure that the encryption differs among categories of recipients if inadvertent disclosure to one of information intended for another would case problems. Also, the encryption of a message when sent will not assure that a plain text version stored or sent internally will not be disseminated by a rogue emailing virus or procured by a hacker. Even encryption does not guarantee privacy from a motivated interceptor because systems can be overcome with sufficient technical skill. Use of a password to open documents attached to email is another possible method available to protect privileged documents.  Using such a system, the document cannot be opened unless the recipient enters the password.  

 

 People rely on the efficiency of email every day both to conduct business and keep in touch with family and friends. This trend will continue.  Although the law thus far attempts to accommodate the use of this new medium of communications, both legal and practical problems continue to exist.  The “best” solution is to avoid the unintended dissemination of privileged or confidential information.

If you have an opinion on these issues, please write to us and let us know.

Visit the home page of Legal Column Archives to see other original articles.

Visit the  web site.

Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P.

Wall Street Plaza, New York, New York 10005-1875, U.S.A.
URL: http://www.fmew.com

 

 

NOTES