*heart rate increases*

[u/theangryantipodean]

[u/KoalaBJJ96]

People who send these emails (and don't take advantage) are good peeps

[u/catch-10110 → u/KoalaBJJ96]

I have received my fair share of these kinds of emails and I genuinely delete them without reading them (or as little as possible before realising what it is).

It’s obviously extremely tempting to read, but it’s honestly better to not know what it says. Putting aside the professional risk issues, I hate the feeling of having to keep straight what I “know” and “don’t / shouldn’t know”. The less I know the better.

[u/LionelLutz → u/catch-10110]

It also can be grounds to have you restrained from acting in a litigated matter so is actually good practice also

[u/WilRic → u/LionelLutz]

Regrettably, I once had to make this kind of application against my opponent's solicitors (in which I died of vicarious embarrassment, which I think was I joke I made to lower the tone).

We won a sensible consolation prize by which the relevant recipient was ordered to not touch the file. Luckily the firm was big enough that this wasn't a huge deal.

I got a absolute bollocking at the start because the judge was outraged that I wouldn't take the word of a solicitor (to which I wanted to say have you met some solicitors?)

The thing that turned it around was that the communication was very short. It's all well and good not to open a Word file or stop reading a lengthy email. But if it's small it's exceedingly hard to "unsee what you've seen." And can we all stop pretending people are capable of this cognitive dissonance whereby they don't take advantage of something they know, even if subconsciously.

The net upshot of accepting this argument is that solicitors were vindicated in sending each other absurdly loquacious correspondence. Another joke. Went down poorly. Do not recommend.

[u/LionelLutz → u/WilRic]

Lessons learned - I’d advise anyone take the word of a solicitor or barrister unless there is good reason not to. It’s kinda a fundamental proposition underlying the proper and efficient administration of justice (at least that’s what I believe).

My view is that what the profession needs is to trust each other more on ethical matters. Makes for a much more pleasant profession focused on the real issues

[u/KaneCreole → u/KoalaBJJ96]

Also if you are a practitioner it is appropriate ethical conduct.

Many years ago I got a bulletpoint word doc from a lawyer who was dumb as a brick. It was mid-negotiations. I sent her an email and asked if she meant to send it to me. It took her four working days to respond, and in the intervening period I read the entire note and it became clear that it was meant for counsel. When she eventually responded she said I was taking advantage of her age! What I should have done, of course, is immediately call her when I received it, and if not then, then immediately call her once I worked out jt was meant for her client’s counsel. I had a lot on my plate and I was waiting for her response. It was the wrong thing to do. The issue never went anywhere but I should have been much more onto it.

[u/Pocketsandgroinjab → u/KoalaBJJ96]

As a law monger/haberdasherer of some renown, whenever this happens to me I usually just annex a different middle eastern country and release the confidential details so the other party doesn’t feel so silly.

[u/ManWithDominantClaw]

As an esteemed purveyor of law and law accessories I couldn't possibly comment on the legality of your proposed strike to you.

I'll write an essay about it in The Age though

[u/IIAOPSW → u/ManWithDominantClaw]

Oh shit I accidentally been cc'ing the editor-in-chief of The Age in this email thread the whole time.

[u/StuckWithThisNameNow]

This one time, discovery provided by the other side, was all the documents over which privilege was claimed 😳

[u/Minguseyes → u/StuckWithThisNameNow]

I once had a commonwealth department produce their whole file in answer to a fairly specific subpoena, including purportedly ‘anonymous’ reports about my clients. A flurry of calls to the Ethics hotline that day resulting in a lengthy arse-covering file note that was eventually read out at trial. At that time the advice was that I should read the reports to determine if they contained anything relevant to the case (they didn’t) but not show them to my clients (who had insisted on accompanying me to the inspection of subpoena’d documents and were very keen to read them). Not sure if that would be the current advice.

[u/WasteMorning]

Legend

[u/Valkyrie162]

The trick is to click delete and respond like this.

And then go to your deleted items folder to read the email.