The attorney-client privilege only protects communications primarily motivated by the client's need for legal advice. It should go without saying that simply "cc'ing" a lawyer on an email does not satisfy this demanding standard.
In Travelers of New Jersey v. Weisman, Dkt. No. A-4085-10T4, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 567 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 15, 2012), the court took the generally accepted view that emails do not automatically deserve protection simply because a lawyer received a copy. The court also noted that "[f]rom our sampling of the file, it appears that [defendant's] in-house attorneys rarely responded to these e-mails, if at all." Id. at *29.
The privilege exists to protect clients' communications of bad facts, worries, admissions, etc., to their lawyers – without fear that any third party will ever see those communications. Perhaps the worst scenario involves a client's false belief that a communication deserves privilege protection when it probably does not. Corporate employees "cc'ing" an in-house lawyer in the mistaken belief that this assures privilege protection might see their supposedly private and potentially damaging emails marked as trial exhibits.
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.
