Ernie wonders if lawyers have an ethical obligation to encrpyt e-mail, in order to preserve client confidentiality.
I don't think so, myself, any more than one has the obligation to encrypt paper mail. Both messages pass throught he hands of third parties; both are possible to intercept given a clever or determined interloper.
But if a snooper captures a paper envelope, steams it open, reads the contents, and passes it along, has the attorney committed an ethical violation by failing to use tamper-proof envelopes? I don't know of any Bar Counsel or court in this country that would impose such a duty.
So why impose a higher duty for e-mail communications? Considering Ernie's point that most lawyers couldn't even spell "PGP", let alone identify a hash function, the folks who make the ethics rules are unlikely to impose such a standard on the entire profession.
Posted by wasylik at March 30, 2004 09:06 PM | TrackBack