|







GIB, Inc.
2910 Morning Creek Rd
Suite 4
San Diego, CA 91914
PH: (619) 661-0641
FX: (619) 661-0642
| |

The Trouble with Email
Email can certainly be a great time saver.
One no longer needs to run to the post office for stamps nor wait several days for
snail mail to complete the delivery. Documents and messages can be exchanged instantaneously
at the click of a button and for some situations a response is only moments away.
Are there any downsides to this great time saver for the law office? In short, yes.
Here are a few of the significant ones. Can an attorney/client relationship be unintentionally
created via email? The answer isn’t as clear as one would hope. Consider this. An
individual is browsing the Internet looking for an email address of an attorney,
any attorney. Once found, this individual submits a legal question. Is this individual
manifesting and intent to create an attorney/client relationship? If the attorney
responds, has the attorney manifested a similar intent and does the attorney know
or could she reasonably foresee that the advice would be relied upon? Does it make
a difference if the email address was obtained from a site such as Martindale Hubble’s
or was found at the firm’s web page where a banner reads “free online consultation?”
There are far too many variables that can
be thrown into this scenario and no developed case law that would allow for a clear
answer here. The best advice is to proceed with caution when unsolicited emails
arrive at an attorney’s desk. The delete button is effective, but more and more
this may not always make the most business sense. The prominent placement of disclaimers
on a web site and/or using a firm email address in advertising and having all incoming
emails screened by a non-attorney addresses this concern to some degree.
If the decision of the firm is to answer
unsolicited questions, the challenge becomes limiting the exposure to a negligent
advice claim. Giving advice in a vacuum is never wise and the limited information
provided in emails makes this a mistake that can occur far too easily. With a phone
call, the attorney has the ability to ask questions and there is much more control
over what information is provided. If the decision is to answer legal questions
from web site directed traffic, consider waiting 24 hours before responding. Take
the time to consider if additional information is needed, to decide what qualifications
should be included and to think through the answer. Advice given on the fly can
too easily miss the mark.
The larger a firm becomes the greater the
possibility that there is an attorney who fails to utilize the technology and thus
never checks for email. If questions for the site are encouraged, every attorney
must routinely review their incoming email. The possibility of a statute getting
blown while an individual waits for a response to her submitted question, particularly
in the absence of a thorough disclaimer on the site, could be a real problem.
If questions are going to be encouraged
on a site and a fee collected however, a disclaimer will likely be completely ineffective,
as attorney actions are inconsistent with a disclaimer that states an attorney-client
relationship cannot be formed. One solution would be to require that before a question
is submitted, the client must agree to the terms of a click-through agreement that
clearly sets forth the terms of the limited engagement and definitively limits the
scope of representation to a question and response or at least documents that the
disclaimer has been read. A click-through agreement typically is used to specify
the terms and conditions that apply to the purchase of a product or service from
the web site. The buyer will explicitly assent to the terms by clicking on an “I
agree” button after having the opportunity to review the terms. Be aware that these
agreements may not be enforceable if the terms are too overbearing or harsh.
Conflicts of Interest are a related concern.
When questions come into the firm the individual often details the facts of their
specific situation. When these emails come directly to the attorney, regardless
of the creation of an attorney-client relationship, should this information be tracked
in a conflict database? I can easily foresee clients trying to conflict a competent
opposing attorney out of the case simply by asking general questions about the specific
case via email with opposing counsel hoping to force a withdrawal. Is this far fetched?
Many law firm web sites fail to ask for name and address of the individuals submitting
the email. How would the firm ever be able to prevent this from happening? Add to
this the real possibility of questions coming into the firm from jurisdictions in
which no attorney is licensed to practice. In this situation the response from the
attorney may be viewed as the unauthorized practice of law, particularly when the
advice given was completely inappropriate for that jurisdiction and a claim is presented.
In light of these possibilities alone,
the web site should have language present at the attorney email hyperlink/s specifically
stating that no email will be reviewed or responded to unless the individual has
submitted their name and address. A state-of-the art conflicts check requires that
the firm only obtain the names of all parties involved in the matter and the type
of matter at issue at first contact and nothing else. Contacts from the Internet
need not alter this approach. The reality is, however, that many firms do not conduct
the conflicts check at this level and do routinely allow for the presentation by
the individual of their legal concern. Given this reality these contacts must be
tracked in the database regardless of the creation of an attorney-client relationship,
meaning declinations as well. Just as one party to a divorce has been known to try
to taint every firm in a given area via phone contact, the Internet can be similarly
used.
The Internet really
hasn’t created any new malpractice exposures, simply a need for different solutions
to the new ways in which these exposures can arise.
Mark C.S. Bassingthwaighte, JD
Regional Risk Manager
Attorneys Liability Prevention Society,
A Mutual Risk Retention Group
|