Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Law Firm Partnership & Benefits ReportKickerFeaturesTopicsLaw Firm ManagementTechnology Media and TelecomSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Policing Workplace e-Mail Use

By Fernando M. Pinguelo and Laura J. Tyson
July 29, 2010

On-the-job Internet surfing has become a problem that employers can no longer ignore. A recent Office of Inspector General investigation, for example, revealed that senior-level SEC staff, including an attorney, used their workplace computers to view online pornography for up to eight hours per day during the period of time that led this country's biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. See, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/SECPornSummary.pdf. The workplace Internet-abuse epidemic is not restricted to massive operations, either. Small companies express concerns that their staff wastes valuable office time tagging photos in Facebook and sending personal e-mails instead of doing work. Yet the blurry divide between prolonged, purely personal workplace Internet (ab)use and the occasional, legitimate need to use temporarily a company computer to communicate with a bank, an online vendor, or an attorney, continues. A company's decision on where to draw the line on personal use of workplace computers poses a great challenge to employers, and recent court rulings do not make the decision and its enforcement any easier.

Under what circumstances do employees who use a workplace computer to communicate with their attorneys waive the attorney-client privilege that would normally attach to such a communication? A recent ruling from New Jersey addressed this question. In Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (N.J. March 30, 2010), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that an employee's private, password-protected e-mails containing communications with her attorney remained privileged, despite the existence of a detailed, written workplace technology policy that expressly placed employees on notice that the employer could intercept and review communications made using the employer's computers at any time. The issue of how the attorney-client privilege applies to workplace e-mails remains murky in many jurisdictions, and this New Jersey ruling, and a few others, provide some much-needed guidance for employers and employees alike.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.