Your Business / Job And The Attorney-Client Privilege – Are Your Communications Privileged?

Work computers, IT systems, company policies, and their effect on otherwise privileged communications.

Communications between a client and his/her attorney(s) are generally protected by the well-recognized attorney-client privilege.  Importantly, however, the attorney-client privilege, along with other recognized privileges, are only as strong as the confidentialities (or expectations of privacy) associated with the parties’ communications.  For instance, it is generally understood that if a third-party is present while an exchange of privileged / confidential information is made with an attorney and the third-party is not an agent of the attorney (generally someone to help with the legal matter) any privilege that may have existed is waived.  In other words, a court will likely find a privilege does not exist if a third-party is present or has access to the confidential / privileged information.

While advances in technology have streamlined the ability for clients and their attorneys to communicate worldwide, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with the simple click of a button, the same technology has opened the door to new challenges regarding the scope and applicability of the attorney-client privilege.  For example, when an employee uses his/her work e-mail (as opposed to a personal e-mail account) to communicate otherwise privileged information with his/her personal attorney, is that e-mail communication privileged?  What if the employee’s work computer and e-mail system is monitored by the employer, is the communication still privileged?  What if the employer has a policy that bans personal use of the company computer and/or information technology (“IT”) systems?  What if IT staff and others have access to the employee’s e-mail account?  Under which of these scenarios, if any, will an employee’s e-mail communication remain privileged?  Conversely, under which scenario may the employee have opened the door for his/her adversary – in a litigation setting – to obtain copies of the employee’s e-mails despite the fact they were sent to the employee’s personal attorney?

These same questions and issues can also apply to disputing business owners.  For example, suppose that A and B are the sole owners in ABC business entity and that A is suing B for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.  Furhter suppose that before and during the litigation A and B use their business’ e-mail account to communicate with their respective personal attorneys regarding the dispute.  Suppose also that A is responsible for keeping up ABC’s IT systems and/or has complete access to the business’ e-mail, which B knew or should have known.  Are B’s e-mails to his attorney privileged or has the privilege been waived?  What if A has reviewed B’s e-mails while maintaining ABC’s IT system, are the e-mails still privileged?  What about A’s e-mails, are they privileged?

These and other unique questions are being litigated more and more in courts across the Nation.  And not surprisingly, a bright-line rule has not surfaced.  While a bright-line rule has yet to surface, several courts have applied what have become known as the Asia Globalfactors to determine whether a privilege exists in some of the unique scenarios described above.  SeeIn re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 322 B.R. 247, 256 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005).  The four (4) Asia Global factors are:

(1) does the employer / business maintain a policy banning personal use of e-mails;

(2) does the employer / business monitor the use of its computer or e-mail;

(3) does the employer / business have access to the computer or e-mails;

(4) did the employer / business notify the employee / person about these policies.

In addition to these four (4) Asia Global factors, some courts have applied a fifth (5) factor, which is:  how did the employer / business interpret its computer usage policy?  See Degeer v. Gillis, 09 C 6974, 2010 WL 3732132 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2010); United States v. Hatfield, 06-CR-0550 (JS), 2009 WL 3806300 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009).

According to the courts and opinions cited above, these factors are used to determine whether an employee / person has a reasonable, subjective expectation of privacy in his/her communication that society is willing to accept as objectively reasonable.  If, upon applying these factors, an employee / person has a subjective expectation of privacy that is objectively reasonable, then certain courts have found the e-mail communications remain privileged.  Conversely, if the expectation of privacy is not reasonable, or it is something that society does not accept as objectively reasonable, then the e-mail communications will not be protected by the privilege.

While this area of the law is continually changing and remains unsettled, a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction that is versed in this area of the law should be able to provide guidance on this and other similarly related privilege issues.  For further information and insight on these issues, the following opinions (in addition to those cited above) may prove helpful:

Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 990 A.2d 650, 655 (2010);

Convertino v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97, 108 (D.D.C. 2009);

United States v. Long, 64 M.J. 57 (C.M.A. 2006);

People v. Jiang, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 184, 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005);

Curto v. Medical World Communications Inc., 2006 WL 1318387

Banks v. Mario Industries of Virginia, Inc., 650 S.E.2d 687 (Va. 2007);

Scott v. Beth Industrial Medical Center, Inc., 847 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y. 2007);

Leor Exploration & Production LLC v. Aguiar, Nos. 09-60136-CIV, 09-60683-CIV, 2009 WL 3097207, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2009);

Leor Exploration & Prod. LLC v. Aguiar, 09-60136-CIV, 2009 WL 3097207 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2009);

Nat’l Econ. Research Associates, Inc. v. Evans, CIV.A. 04-2618-BLS2, 2006 WL 2440008 (Mass. Super. Aug. 3, 2006);

Current Med. Directions, LLC v. Salomone, 26 Misc. 3d 1229(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).

LEGAL DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE

Innovative Litigation, L.L.C., as owner and host of this site, and Matthew McKinney as the author (acting on behalf of and through Innovative Litigation, L.L.C.) cannot and does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of the information presented on or through this site.  The law can and does change over time and the information contained herein may not reflect the most recent laws – whether statutory law, administrative law, case law, constitutional law, or otherwise.  The information on this website does not constitute legal advice and readers should not rely on it to solve problems or other matters.  Further, you should seek licensed counsel in the appropriate legal jurisdiction before taking any action.  Any information provided on this site is presented “As Is” for your personal curiosity and enjoyment.  It is not meant to be relied upon for legal advice, counsel, or for any other purposes.  Such information does not take the place of a lawyer.  Rules and laws differ by jurisdiction and the information contained within this website may not apply in your jurisdiction.  The appearance of articles, listings, or ads, by or for professionals, on this site, does not constitute an endorsement.  In all cases, you are responsible for determining the quality of services, information, and/or advice provided by professionals through, or as a consequence of, your use of this site.  Neither liability nor responsibility shall arise to any person or entity with respect to loss or damage caused (or alleged to be caused), directly or indirectly, by information posted on this website, or by reason of contact with a professional listed on, or posting information to, this site.  No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing this website and practice is limited to jurisdiction where lawyers are admitted.  The information furnished on the website is only general and not a substitute for personalized legal advice.   Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to the individual(s) situation.  Laws can change daily and new laws may, and likely will, affect the accuracy of the information herein.  The information herein may be outdated and replaced by new law.

If you are seeking representation, please read the following notice before sending an e-mail:

Sending an e-mail will not make you a client.  Until an agreement regarding representation is reached with you, anything you send will not be confidential or privileged.  Before representation can occur, a lawyer will first take you through the conflict of interest procedure and see that you are put in touch with the lawyer best suited to handle your matter.

If you proceed with an e-mail, you confirm that you have read and understood this notice.

Advertisements

About Matthew McKinney

Attorney focused on civil and commercial litigation.
This entry was posted in Business Owner, Director, Litigation, Shareholder and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s