ARTICLE
2 February 2011

Potential Loss Of Attorney-Client Privilege Yet Another Social Media / Blogging Concern For Employers

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Social media and blogging are quickly becoming areas of focus and concern for employers.
United States Employment and HR

Labor and Employment Law Weekly Update (Week of January 31, 2011)

Social media and blogging are quickly becoming areas of focus and concern for employers. In the past, we have encouraged employers to create social media and blogging policies and to be watchful of the content employees are submitting through these avenues, given concerns, among others, about protecting the status of confidential and trade secret information. We also have discussed concerns arising from the potential for use of social media as evidence. See Labor and Employment Law Weekly Update (Week of September 7, 2010) ( http://tinyurl.com/4d9n8bc).A recent case shows another risk associated with social media and blogging — the potential waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

Confidential, attorney-client privileged information is generally protected from discovery. However, the privilege can be voluntarily waived by the holder of the privilege when the confidential information is disclosed to third parties. A California court (http://tinyurl.com/4nejgy3) recently faced such disclosure in a case in which the employee, via e-mails, a blog, and Internet chat sessions, disclosed information about her attorneys' litigation strategy. The statements made during the employee's use of social media included a statement that her attorneys were "pretty well salivating over getting their teeth into UMG [the employer] again." The court determined that this statement waived the privilege with respect to information about why the employee brought the lawsuit. In addition, the employee said in a Gmail chat conversation that her attorneys hoped that an opinion in the case would clarify a "cloudy" decision. This statement waived the privilege with respect to the attorneys' specific legal strategies.

The California court's ruling is harsh, but the lesson is clear. Employers involved in litigation should limit the number of employees with access to attorney-client privileged information to those with a need to participate in attorney-client communications or with a business need to know the privileged information. Explicitly instruct those employees not to reveal the attorney-client privileged information to third parties, including to third parties via social media or blogging. Employers must remind employees that they should use equal caution and care when engaging in social media or blogging as they would when writing a formal letter. The electronic "record" is easily accessible and rarely capable of being completely expunged once written. Explaining exactly what impact disclosure of this information via social media can have will help to highlight the seriousness of this issue for those with knowledge of the company's attorney-client privileged information.

The simplest solution to avoiding the loss of the attorney-client privilege through social media or blogging is restraint. Just do not discuss, tweet, post to Facebook, and so forth, information regarding company legal issues. Following this rule is especially prudent given that the Web site itself (Facebook, for example) may actually be considered the "owner" of posted information, with access rights to that information. Arguably, this alone could result in a waiver. Further, while companies may want to provide litigation updates on their Web sites, any litigation-related statements on company Web sites also should be limited so as not to risk waiver.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More