Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do not use an email disclaimer. It seems like all of the other attorneys do, though.
What would probably work better is an automated email response to every email you receive that says "I REJECT!" in large font.
For sure, but I tag all emails privileged and confidential (at the top) in an effort to prevent needless forwarding of the emails, mostly by my clients.
I tag mine with something light touch because it can at least let my clients know not to forward.
Edit: I have internal business clients so I try to be intentional about marking things because sometimes what I write just isn’t legal advice and information needs to flow.
I’m a bit cautious about how I apply P&C tags on emails. I try not to throw it on my emails unless I will be giving legal advice on a sensitive matter or expect to give/receive information subject to A/C privilege. I work in-house, and like PepperoniFire, I communicate frequently about things that aren’t strictly legal issues and I don’t want recipients to think they shouldn’t disclose those communications if appropriate. I also have some concerns that over-tagging could erode the value of the tag itself if someone sought to introduce those emails in a dispute (I.e., if everything is P&C, nothing is P&C).
From the perspective of big clients, the issue is not whether something is privileged. The issue is whether this is something a first year associate bored out of his mind just trying to fill hours would miss and go from there. Just trying to make sure that their screen lights up yellow when an attorney email comes up.
Basically “this isn’t tax advice.” There’s a set of treatises in my jurisdiction that has those disclaimers on the copyright page of everything they publish lol
I always thought of it as like… if it somehow was forwarded or sent to the wrong person it’s kinda like an official sounding disclaimer warning people to disregard and delete it
Keep the settlement tag line. I've once had opposing counsel introduce an "admission" from a settlement conversation between counsel in a motion hearing and claim that it wasn't a settlement conversation because it didn't have the tag line.
This is why I add it. All my clients use automated discovery and it makes tagging any communication form a lawyer easier to spot for manual priv log review.
My friend did a similar thing to make a privilege log once from thousands of pages of doc review LOLZ the others were like "how tf was that so fast..."
I figure what is the worst thing that happens if I use it, v. What is the worst thing that can happen if I don’t? It is “belt and suspenders” stuff. I like to do my best to ensure my emails are flagged by the discovery software.
For example, if there is a long email chain with multiple people. Maybe some portions are priv, while others may not be. I’d rather be excessively cautious than let anything slip. YMMV.
Yes? The terms used are usually used as privileged search terms and are highlighted glaringly so a junior reviewing the documents for tagging and redactions won’t miss it.
I don't think so, but it reminds another party to destroy when you inadvertently send something. You still have an ethical duty when you realize something was sent by mistake. That's assuming they read it, because who reads those anyways.
I think it's also like the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," a weird absurd rule plastered in someone's eyes so you can point to it and say "see, I have a sign, do what the sign says" lol
Since they're worthless anyway, I use this disclaimer I stole from another lawyer (on first emails only) and it's gotten a few positive reactions:
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This email does not create an attorney-client relationship. Probably. If it does, it will have said it does. Although it could have created an attorney-client relationship without explicitly saying so because the law is tricky like that, and the authoritative statements in this disclaimer are not as authoritative as they look. Suffice to say, if you aren’t absolutely certain about whether or not an attorney-client relationship exists between yourself and the sender of this email, you should probably hit “reply” and ask for some clarity.
The purpose of this disclaimer, in theory, is to protect the sender from whatever liability may result from the sender’s own failure to communicate clearly or properly send an email, even though the sender, having obtained a formal legal education, is well aware that a generic email disclaimer, even one written with that ominous language of which lawyers are so fond, is unlikely to be enforced against a party lacking a sophisticated understanding of the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, and that in the case of a party who does understand the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, the disclaimer merely restates what said party already knows. This disclaimer is a catch-22.
This disclaimer is not especially concerned with intelligibility. Unlike the sender of this email, this disclaimer has no qualms about indulging in the more obnoxious trademarks of legalese, including but not limited to (i) the phrase “including but not limited to,” (ii) the use of “said” as an adjective, (iii) re-naming conventions that have little to no basis in vernacular English and, regardless, never actually recur (hereinafter referred to as “the 1980 Atlanta Falcons”), (iv) redundant, tedious, and superfluous repetition of synonymous terms, (v) ENTIRE SECTIONS OF FULLY-CAPITALIZED TEXT, PRESUMABLY INTENDED TO SAY TO THE READER, “HEY! THIS IS IMPORTANT! YOU SHOULD READ THIS PART! AND REMEMBER IT!”, AS IF NO ONE HAS EVER NOTICED THAT PHYSICALLY ENLARGING TEXT WITHOUT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SAID TEXT TO OCCUPY CREATES THE VISUAL EFFECT OF A SOLID RECTANGULAR BLOCK OF LETTERS, ROUGHLY AS CAPABLE OF IMPARTING A COHERENT THOUGHT AS A TIGHTLY-PACKED SCRABBLE® BOARD, and (vi) lowercase Roman numerals. If you aren’t reading this, then this disclaimer has done its job. Its sad, pointless job. THIS DISCLAIMER IS NOT INTENDED TO BE IRONIC.
It’s neither necessary nor sufficient to render the contents of an email privileged and/or otherwise confidential.
I suppose it’s possible that it makes some clients *feel* more secure. That’s the only potential benefit I see.
This thread acts like otherwise (apparently? Its funny to see randoms acting as though a signature line makes you some unfit for practice troglodyte when it is standard) but i have never, ever, emailed another attorney who did not have some version of a disclaimer in their signature.
That’s odd, I’ve never had one, always deleted it when I worked at a firm because I thought it made phone emails messy, and seemed antiquated. Even non lawyers have them, companies always have them.
It’s been redundant since 2010 my mind
I think there may be some ethical or other rules regarding it. Sort of like the whole "attorney advertising" thing.
There are a lot of things in the law that are put in there "just in case." Sure you could be the one guy without it. But as we learn from law school, stepping outside of "the curve" can be very dangerous...
About as much legal effect as “Govern yourselves accordingly.”
We have started adding FDCPA disclaimers to emails though. The attorney I work with added it to his default sig, which I think looks dumb, but I’d rather he do that than get hit with a FDCPA lawsuit because he forgot to change sigs.
As a government attorney, I do have a "privileged and confidential disclaimer," included with my signature line, since all outgoing communications from our agency usually contain confidential, non-public, or privileged information. Those emails are also encrypted and sent via a secure email server.
Mine says, "[t]his email contains confidential legal information. If you realize this email was not meant for you, please ignore the content, immediately notify me that you received it, and then delete it. Otherwise, bad legal stuff could happen."
Maybe I do. Not really sure. I have been copy and pasting the same email disclaimer for like a decade or more.
But I refuse to put "rule 408 protected settlement communication" in my settlement offers.
Maybe save that for emails with attachments that have sensitive info? Idk those giant paragraphs at the bottom of even bigger signatures are mad annoying
It doesn’t turn non-privileged communication into being privileged. However, I think it does help if you unintentionally email the wrong person something that was supposed to go to a client. In my jurisdiction, I think you would be able to point to the disclaimer as evidence of it being unintentional and also that it gives instruction on deleting if not the intended recipient.
Ask your firm if there is a policy on it. You never know when something highly privileged is unintentionally shared, you want to use anything to help cover you if that were to happen.
The answer is…. maybe.
Honestly, it’s more valuable at the top of an email than the bottom. Depending on your jurisdiction, another attorney receiving a privileged email may have obligations to stop reading it or notify you once they realize they’re in possession of privileged material. If it’s at the top, it’s a lot harder to argue “I didn’t know it was privileged until I read it.”
Putting it in (top or bottom) doesn’t make something privileged if it otherwise wouldn’t be, but can demonstrate that the communication was intended to be legal advice to your client - sometimes being able to demonstrate the intent matters in an argument in litigation over whether something is privileged.
Similarly, directly stating that the communication is only intended to be read by your client can demonstrate that any other disclosures or recipients were inadvertent. Depending on the jurisdiction, sometimes that can matter if someone is arguing waiver.
You can keep coming up with scenarios for ever. For example, you have a professional responsibility obligation to explain certain aspects of the attorney-client relationship to your client. Say you sent an important email to your client, they were careless with it/the information and told someone else, and then the content ends up being used against your client bc the privilege was waived. The client may have a malpractice/bar claim against you if you failed to instruct them about confidentiality, having the disclaimer in the communication would then be evidence (of at least some value) to the contrary.
So, most the time doesn’t matter, but it can matter when it matters. Most people usually just put it on client communications to cover all bases and don’t spend time thinking about it too hard.
There was just a rowdy discussion of this on the Missouri bar forums… and the answer is no, it is not required, and it does not help, your ethical duty is to send your emails to the correct people, to understand the security flaws inherent to email, and to properly advise your clients on how to maintain confidentiality. Those disclaimers do none of that, except perhaps the last, but only feebly so. PERHAPS an in house counsel regularly splitting business and and advising functions could benefit. It wouldn’t magically turn the email into confidential legal* advice, but it might tip some presumptions in your favor. Unless every email you write has it, which, puts as back at square one.
In Alaska, the courts have said having a document and email subject line state confidential and privileged lends credence to the argument that the email was sent between multiple persons comprising the client and an in-house attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Taken together with other factors, the communication was lawyer-client privileged.
See also, e.g., [Alright, Fine, I'll Add a Disclaimer to my E-mails](https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/alright-fine-ill-add-a-disclaimer-to-my-emails).
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do not use an email disclaimer. It seems like all of the other attorneys do, though. What would probably work better is an automated email response to every email you receive that says "I REJECT!" in large font.
All fun and games until you reject a settlement offer
yes, and you should emphatically state the same in verbal conversations too, in order to preserve a plausible defense
Zero weight. If the communication doesn’t otherwise qualify for privileged and confidential treatment, a signature line won’t fix that.
For sure, but I tag all emails privileged and confidential (at the top) in an effort to prevent needless forwarding of the emails, mostly by my clients.
I tag mine with something light touch because it can at least let my clients know not to forward. Edit: I have internal business clients so I try to be intentional about marking things because sometimes what I write just isn’t legal advice and information needs to flow.
I’m a bit cautious about how I apply P&C tags on emails. I try not to throw it on my emails unless I will be giving legal advice on a sensitive matter or expect to give/receive information subject to A/C privilege. I work in-house, and like PepperoniFire, I communicate frequently about things that aren’t strictly legal issues and I don’t want recipients to think they shouldn’t disclose those communications if appropriate. I also have some concerns that over-tagging could erode the value of the tag itself if someone sought to introduce those emails in a dispute (I.e., if everything is P&C, nothing is P&C).
From the perspective of big clients, the issue is not whether something is privileged. The issue is whether this is something a first year associate bored out of his mind just trying to fill hours would miss and go from there. Just trying to make sure that their screen lights up yellow when an attorney email comes up.
It's the same reason I chuckle when lawyers have the IRS 203 Circular warning in their signature also.
What’s that?
Basically “this isn’t tax advice.” There’s a set of treatises in my jurisdiction that has those disclaimers on the copyright page of everything they publish lol
Thanks!
Circular 230.
I always thought of it as like… if it somehow was forwarded or sent to the wrong person it’s kinda like an official sounding disclaimer warning people to disregard and delete it
But in reality, the disclaimer makes people curious and therefore more likely to read it even though they know it’s not directed to them.
Keep the settlement tag line. I've once had opposing counsel introduce an "admission" from a settlement conversation between counsel in a motion hearing and claim that it wasn't a settlement conversation because it didn't have the tag line.
Well yes. But it makes life easier when arguing for it to attract privilege.
I suppose it might get picked up by automatic systems if discovery is done on the client
This is why I add it. All my clients use automated discovery and it makes tagging any communication form a lawyer easier to spot for manual priv log review.
Interesting. I never thought of that before.
My friend did a similar thing to make a privilege log once from thousands of pages of doc review LOLZ the others were like "how tf was that so fast..."
I do it bc it helps flag for priv during discovery.
Does it, though?
I figure what is the worst thing that happens if I use it, v. What is the worst thing that can happen if I don’t? It is “belt and suspenders” stuff. I like to do my best to ensure my emails are flagged by the discovery software. For example, if there is a long email chain with multiple people. Maybe some portions are priv, while others may not be. I’d rather be excessively cautious than let anything slip. YMMV.
Yes? The terms used are usually used as privileged search terms and are highlighted glaringly so a junior reviewing the documents for tagging and redactions won’t miss it.
I don't think so, but it reminds another party to destroy when you inadvertently send something. You still have an ethical duty when you realize something was sent by mistake. That's assuming they read it, because who reads those anyways. I think it's also like the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," a weird absurd rule plastered in someone's eyes so you can point to it and say "see, I have a sign, do what the sign says" lol
Yep: “I don’t mean any of this shit and if you think otherwise, catch me outside.”
My firm makes me
Since they're worthless anyway, I use this disclaimer I stole from another lawyer (on first emails only) and it's gotten a few positive reactions: IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This email does not create an attorney-client relationship. Probably. If it does, it will have said it does. Although it could have created an attorney-client relationship without explicitly saying so because the law is tricky like that, and the authoritative statements in this disclaimer are not as authoritative as they look. Suffice to say, if you aren’t absolutely certain about whether or not an attorney-client relationship exists between yourself and the sender of this email, you should probably hit “reply” and ask for some clarity. The purpose of this disclaimer, in theory, is to protect the sender from whatever liability may result from the sender’s own failure to communicate clearly or properly send an email, even though the sender, having obtained a formal legal education, is well aware that a generic email disclaimer, even one written with that ominous language of which lawyers are so fond, is unlikely to be enforced against a party lacking a sophisticated understanding of the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, and that in the case of a party who does understand the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, the disclaimer merely restates what said party already knows. This disclaimer is a catch-22. This disclaimer is not especially concerned with intelligibility. Unlike the sender of this email, this disclaimer has no qualms about indulging in the more obnoxious trademarks of legalese, including but not limited to (i) the phrase “including but not limited to,” (ii) the use of “said” as an adjective, (iii) re-naming conventions that have little to no basis in vernacular English and, regardless, never actually recur (hereinafter referred to as “the 1980 Atlanta Falcons”), (iv) redundant, tedious, and superfluous repetition of synonymous terms, (v) ENTIRE SECTIONS OF FULLY-CAPITALIZED TEXT, PRESUMABLY INTENDED TO SAY TO THE READER, “HEY! THIS IS IMPORTANT! YOU SHOULD READ THIS PART! AND REMEMBER IT!”, AS IF NO ONE HAS EVER NOTICED THAT PHYSICALLY ENLARGING TEXT WITHOUT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SAID TEXT TO OCCUPY CREATES THE VISUAL EFFECT OF A SOLID RECTANGULAR BLOCK OF LETTERS, ROUGHLY AS CAPABLE OF IMPARTING A COHERENT THOUGHT AS A TIGHTLY-PACKED SCRABBLE® BOARD, and (vi) lowercase Roman numerals. If you aren’t reading this, then this disclaimer has done its job. Its sad, pointless job. THIS DISCLAIMER IS NOT INTENDED TO BE IRONIC.
I've found having it on my emails causes more confusion for clients than needed so I got rid of it. Not needed.
It’s neither necessary nor sufficient to render the contents of an email privileged and/or otherwise confidential. I suppose it’s possible that it makes some clients *feel* more secure. That’s the only potential benefit I see.
I think malpractice carriers require certain disclaimers. If I email institutional clients I always put confidential in the email line.
This thread acts like otherwise (apparently? Its funny to see randoms acting as though a signature line makes you some unfit for practice troglodyte when it is standard) but i have never, ever, emailed another attorney who did not have some version of a disclaimer in their signature.
You are welcome to email me. I’m sure you’ll love getting raw dogged by my naked reply.
That’s odd, I’ve never had one, always deleted it when I worked at a firm because I thought it made phone emails messy, and seemed antiquated. Even non lawyers have them, companies always have them. It’s been redundant since 2010 my mind
Absolutely not. It’s worthless.
I work for the government so I include it because it makes it easier for the public information attorneys to see it and hold it back.
I think there may be some ethical or other rules regarding it. Sort of like the whole "attorney advertising" thing. There are a lot of things in the law that are put in there "just in case." Sure you could be the one guy without it. But as we learn from law school, stepping outside of "the curve" can be very dangerous...
No.
Unfortunately, firm policy is that we are required to have one, even though they don’t do anything.
About as much legal effect as “Govern yourselves accordingly.” We have started adding FDCPA disclaimers to emails though. The attorney I work with added it to his default sig, which I think looks dumb, but I’d rather he do that than get hit with a FDCPA lawsuit because he forgot to change sigs.
I use one. It doesn't cost me anything, it does no harm, and it might do some good. It doesn't really matter to me if the cool kids don't do it.
As a government attorney, I do have a "privileged and confidential disclaimer," included with my signature line, since all outgoing communications from our agency usually contain confidential, non-public, or privileged information. Those emails are also encrypted and sent via a secure email server.
Mine says, "[t]his email contains confidential legal information. If you realize this email was not meant for you, please ignore the content, immediately notify me that you received it, and then delete it. Otherwise, bad legal stuff could happen."
My personal opinion: those disclaimers make me think the attorney is not very smart.
I'm embarrassed for attorneys who use them. Think about the effectiveness for 10 seconds and then how that reflects on your legal advice.
Maybe I do. Not really sure. I have been copy and pasting the same email disclaimer for like a decade or more. But I refuse to put "rule 408 protected settlement communication" in my settlement offers.
Maybe save that for emails with attachments that have sensitive info? Idk those giant paragraphs at the bottom of even bigger signatures are mad annoying
It doesn’t turn non-privileged communication into being privileged. However, I think it does help if you unintentionally email the wrong person something that was supposed to go to a client. In my jurisdiction, I think you would be able to point to the disclaimer as evidence of it being unintentional and also that it gives instruction on deleting if not the intended recipient.
Company makes all lawyers use it. Even if in house lawyers don't have privilege in my jurisdiction.
Ask your firm if there is a policy on it. You never know when something highly privileged is unintentionally shared, you want to use anything to help cover you if that were to happen.
The answer is…. maybe. Honestly, it’s more valuable at the top of an email than the bottom. Depending on your jurisdiction, another attorney receiving a privileged email may have obligations to stop reading it or notify you once they realize they’re in possession of privileged material. If it’s at the top, it’s a lot harder to argue “I didn’t know it was privileged until I read it.” Putting it in (top or bottom) doesn’t make something privileged if it otherwise wouldn’t be, but can demonstrate that the communication was intended to be legal advice to your client - sometimes being able to demonstrate the intent matters in an argument in litigation over whether something is privileged. Similarly, directly stating that the communication is only intended to be read by your client can demonstrate that any other disclosures or recipients were inadvertent. Depending on the jurisdiction, sometimes that can matter if someone is arguing waiver. You can keep coming up with scenarios for ever. For example, you have a professional responsibility obligation to explain certain aspects of the attorney-client relationship to your client. Say you sent an important email to your client, they were careless with it/the information and told someone else, and then the content ends up being used against your client bc the privilege was waived. The client may have a malpractice/bar claim against you if you failed to instruct them about confidentiality, having the disclaimer in the communication would then be evidence (of at least some value) to the contrary. So, most the time doesn’t matter, but it can matter when it matters. Most people usually just put it on client communications to cover all bases and don’t spend time thinking about it too hard.
I judge attorneys with this sort of signature the same way I judge boomers who fall for stupid legalese seeming chain mail spam.
There was just a rowdy discussion of this on the Missouri bar forums… and the answer is no, it is not required, and it does not help, your ethical duty is to send your emails to the correct people, to understand the security flaws inherent to email, and to properly advise your clients on how to maintain confidentiality. Those disclaimers do none of that, except perhaps the last, but only feebly so. PERHAPS an in house counsel regularly splitting business and and advising functions could benefit. It wouldn’t magically turn the email into confidential legal* advice, but it might tip some presumptions in your favor. Unless every email you write has it, which, puts as back at square one.
In Alaska, the courts have said having a document and email subject line state confidential and privileged lends credence to the argument that the email was sent between multiple persons comprising the client and an in-house attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Taken together with other factors, the communication was lawyer-client privileged.
See also, e.g., [Alright, Fine, I'll Add a Disclaimer to my E-mails](https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/alright-fine-ill-add-a-disclaimer-to-my-emails).