Skip to content

MENU

HomeAboutContactCOVID-19 Task Force
Thompson Hine logo
Subscribe to this blog via RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

The Law for Lawyers Today

Ethics, Professional Responsibility and More

Home > How Not to Practice > You can’t spy on opposing counsel by “bugging” their e-mail, ethics opinion says

You can’t spy on opposing counsel by “bugging” their e-mail, ethics opinion says

By Karen Rubin on November 17, 2016
Posted in How Not to Practice, In-house Counsel, Law Practice Management, Social Media and Internet

Green Woman Eye and KeyholeAlaska may have only about 2,500 active resident lawyers, but its bar ethics committee has become just the second authority in the country to weigh in on the practice of “bugging” the e-mail of opposing counsel.  The committee disapproved of this spy method in an opinion issued in late October, saying that it violated the Last Frontier’s version of Model Rule 8.4, which prohibits dishonesty and misrepresentation.

Don’t let this bug you

A “web bug” is a tracking device consisting of an object embedded in a web page or e-mail, that unobtrusively (usually invisibly) reveals whether and how a user has accessed the content.  Other names for a web bug are web beacon, pixel tracker  and page tag.

I had never heard of web bugs before, but apparently they are universal in the Internet world, enabling e-newsletter editors, for example, to get metrics on how many readers open the newsletter, and what pages they look at.  But web bugs can be used for less benign ends, including getting a leg up on opposing counsel.

As described by the Alaska opinion, web-bugging involves placing a tiny image with a unique website address on an Internet server, and dropping a link to that image into the bugged e-mail.  “The image may be invisible or may be disguised as a part of the document (e.g., part of a footer.)  When the recipient opens the document, the recipient’s computer looks up the image and thereby sends certain information to the sending party.”

The information available from a web bug is wide-ranging, including:

  • when and how many times the e-mail was opened
  • how long it was reviewed (including whether it was in the foreground or background)
  • whether the recipient opened attachments
  • how long the attachment or a particular page of the attachment was reviewed
  • whether and when the e-mail and/or attachment was forwarded
  • the approximate geographical location of the recipient

Web bugs are different than meta-data (which has been the subject of many ethics opinions).  Meta-data is automatically a part of documents created with word-processing programs, unless the user scrubs it.  In contrast, bugging e-mail that you plan to send requires an affirmative act.

According to the opinion, web bugs operate surreptitiously, and “it cannot be said with any assurance that [existing] detection programs will be consistently effective” in detecting them.

“Unwarranted intrusion”

The Alaska ethics committee determined that using web bugs to track e-mail sent to opposing counsel “impermissibly and unethically interferes with the lawyer-client relationship and the preservation of confidences and secrets,” and it represents an “unwarranted intrusion into the attorney-client relationship.”

For instance, knowing how long and how often your opposing counsel has viewed a bugged e-mail can unlock information on how important the communication is deemed to be.  In litigation, a web bugged document could provide valuable insight on which pages of a settlement agreement got the most attention.  “This gives the sending lawyer access to attorney-client protected information and extraordinary insight as to which sections of a document the lawyer and her client found most important,” the committee concluded.

Using technology to accomplish such purposes, said the committee, violated Rule 8.4 even when its use is disclosed and not surreptitious.

The Alaska committee agreed with the opinion of New York State Bar Association, which issued the only other analysis of the issue, in 2001.

An obvious foul

It should be self-evident to any lawyer who has taken a law-school ethics course or an ethics CLE that bugging e-mail sent to opposing counsel is dishonest.  As technology offers more ways to obtain an improper advantage over an opponent, ethics regulators will play Whack-a-Mole in finding those methods to be unethical.  But it’s discouraging that such efforts are even needed.

Tags: Alaska Opinion 2016-1, metadata, New York Opinion 749, web beacon, web bug
Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Karen Rubin Karen Rubin

Karen is a member of Thompson Hine’s business litigation group.  She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair…

Karen is a member of Thompson Hine’s business litigation group.  She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of the Ohio State Bar Association’s Ethics Committee.  She also chairs that committee’s Ethics Opinions subcommittee, and has authored several ethics opinions on behalf of the OSBA interpreting the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.  Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, teaching legal ethics.

Read more about Karen RubinKaren's Linkedin ProfileKaren's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
Related Posts
  • Can we talk? In-house counsel and opponent's lawyer can communicate, says Va. opinion
  • DOJ division leader apologizes for license lapse and inadvertent practice
  • Keeping up with the Joneses: Should the Rules of Professional Conduct bend for in-house lawyers?
  • In-house counsel and privilege: opinion offers some take-home lessons
  • Luxury ride over: TX court disqualifies former Rolls-Royce lawyer based on conflict

Blog Editors Show/Hide

  • Karen Rubin
  • Tom Feher
  • Frank DeSantis

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog via RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

About this Blog

The Law for Lawyers Today is a resource for law firms, law departments and lawyers needing information to meet the challenge of practicing ethically and responsibly. Here you’ll find timely updates on legal ethics, the “law of lawyering,” risk management and legal malpractice, running your legal business— and more.

SERVICE OFFERINGS TO LAWYERS & LAW FIRMS

Topics

Archives

Recent Updates

  • Law firm arbitration agreement with client requires full disclosure of upside and downside, NJ court rules
  • Will contest brings disciplinary woe to SC lawyer
  • Of cats and competence: legal ethics lesson from the trenches
  • Negative online client reviews: ABA gives some tips for responding
  • No DQ for contacting represented party on a different subject, district court says
Thompson Hine logo
Atlanta | Chicago | Cincinnati | Cleveland | Columbus | Dayton | New York | Washington, D.C.
Subscribe to this blog via RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

About Thompson Hine

For more than a century, Thompson Hine has been committed to excellence on behalf of our clients, our people and the communities in which we live and work. Clients rank us among the top firms in the United States for client service year after year, and we are proud of the accolades we have earned in recognition of our capabilities and leadership.

Privacy PolicyDisclaimer
Copyright © 2021, Thompson Hine. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog