While criminal law is not our forte, this case has potentially enormous significance for privilege in electronic communications. At this time, a wave of cases addressing whether an employer, or (much more significantly), a third party, e-mails sent from an e-mail account maintained at a business where that business as an enforceable policy providing that personal e-mails are monitored and not confidential can, nonetheless, be claimed as privileged. Although the issue typically arises in employee-employer litigation, where the employer wants access to e-mails sent from the employee to his lawyer, the principle that privilege is waived would apply where a third-party seeks access as well.

Quon will likely influence this body of law, as well. Stay tuned.

If you see a judge today, don’t wave!

Frankly, this one baffles me.  I can understand why you can’t ask someone to say something about you that you can’t yourself say, because of Rule 8.4, but am I really under an obligation to make sure non-clients comply with the lawyer advertising rules?  Stay tuned, but in the meanwhile, you South Carolina lawyers better go read your various listings, I suppose including Face book!

It’s not online yet, but presumably shortly will be here.  I’ll gladly email you a copy if you email hricik_d@law.mercer.edu

A few months back, a Philadelphia bar opinion held that a lawyer could not use a fake “name” on facebook to become befriended so as to gain access to an opposing party’s home page, as it violated Rules 4.2, 4.3 and 8.4.  That opinion is here.