伦理意见281

以电子邮件传送机密资料

在大多数情况下, 通过未加密的电子邮件传输机密信息则不会 本身 违反法律行业的保密规定. 但是，个别情况可能需要更大的安全手段.

适用的规则

• 规则1.6(保密)

调查

我们借此机会考虑规则1.6 of the District of Columbia 职业行为准则 would be violated by a lawyer who communicates concerning confidential matters with clients, 和/或其他共同代表客户的澳博app, 透过商业服务或直接透过互联网传送未加密的电子邮件. 我们的结论是，使用未加密的电子邮件本身并不违反规则1.6.

讨论

规则1.第6条在有关部分规定如下:

. . . 澳博app不得在知情的情况下泄露澳博app委托人的秘密. . . .

此外，规则1.6(e) requires lawyers to ensure that persons working for the lawyer use reasonable means to ensure the confidentiality of protected client information.

最近大量使用电子邮件作为澳博app和客户之间的沟通方式¹ has raised a question whether a lawyer is acting responsibly to protect his client’s confidences when he transmits them electronically.

A number of the early ethics opinions that considered this subject reached the conclusion that unencrypted electronic transmission violated 规则1.6. 看,e.g., 爱荷华州最高法院. 专业操守课. 96-1 (8/29/96); South Carolina 酒吧 Ethics Advisory Comm. Op. No. 94-27 (1/95); and Colorado Ethics Op. No. 90 (11/14/92). A number of those opinions were based on the notion that electronic communications are impermissibly susceptible to interception and access by third parties, 在未经客户明确同意的情况下，以这种方式传递客户机密是不恰当的. E.g., 北卡罗来纳州澳博app职业道德行动. No. RPC 215 (7/95).²

然而, as the technology involved in electronic transmission has become better understood and 随着电信法律的发展, 普遍的观点是, 本委员会通过的, is that electronic transmission is in most instances an acceptable form of conveying client confidences even where the lawyer does not obtain specific client consent. 看,e.g., 北达科塔州澳博app协会道德委员会. Op. No. 97-09 (9/4/97); Illinois State 酒吧 Ass’n Advisory Op. 有关专业操守编号. 96-10 (5/16/97); Arizona State 酒吧 Ass’n Formal Op. No. 97-04 (4/4/97); South Carolina 酒吧 Ethics Advisory Comm. Op. No. 97-08(6/97)(推翻南卡罗来纳州澳博app道德咨询委员会. Op. 94-27, 在上); and Vermont Advisory Ethics Op. No. 97-5.

在讨论这些问题时，定义一些术语是有用的. 我们从佛蒙特咨询伦理Op中提出了三个定义. No. 97-5:

“Electronic mail” or “e-mail” is a message sent from one user’s computer to another user’s computer via a host computer on a network, or via a private or local area network (which we defined to mean a network wholly owned by one company or person which is available only to those persons employed by the owners or to whom the owner has granted legal access) or via an electronic mail service such as America Online (a public network), 通过互联网, 或者通过这些方法的组合.

“Encrypted e-mail” is e-mail that has been electronically locked to prevent anyone but the intended recipient from reading it using a “lock and key” technology.

The “Internet” is a world-wide super network of computers consisting of individual computers and private and public networks owned by various persons and entities including business, 学校, 政府, 还有不安全的军用电脑. 个人用户通过本地“主机”计算机连接到互联网. The local host computer communicates with other computers throughout the world over the phone lines or privately owned high-speed fiber optic lines using a collection of well-defined common protocols.

最后，理解电子邮件如何在因特网上传播是很重要的. 这里，我们引用北达科塔州澳博app协会道德委员会的话. Op. No. 97-09 (9/4/97):

E-mail sent over the Internet does not go directly from the sender’s computer over a land-based line to a password-protected “mailbox.信息由发送计算机或主机分成两个或两个以上的信息包, which are then sent individually over the lines and ultimately reassembled back into the complete message at the recipient’s “mailbox.” The mailboxes may exist on the recipient’s computer or may exist on the host computer that the recipient uses to connect to the Internet. These information packets must pass through and be temporarily stored in other computers called “routers” operated by different firms known as “Internet 服务公司ice Providers” which assist in distributing e-mail over the Internet.

It seems to us that the pre-1997 opinions holding that electronic transmission did not adequately protect client confidences overlooked three key factors. 第一个, 所有传递信息的方法都是, 在某种程度上, 可能被拦截. A conference room could be subject to electronic eavesdropping; a telephone line may be tapped; or a fax may be intercepted in the fax room of its intended recipient. 这些风险并不意味着这些通信方法不能用于传送机密信息. 事实上, 考虑到会议室里可能有窃听器, 邮件篡改, 窃听, 传真拦截, 在我们看来规则1下的问题.6 .传输方式是否使人有理由期望所发送的信息保持机密. The rule does not require absolute security in protecting confidentiality; it requires reasonable effort to maintain confidentiality.

第二个, a number of the pre-1997 opinions on this subject overlooked the fact that while a message is actually traveling over the Internet, 被拆解成若干个数据包，这些数据包可能不在平行路线上传播, 捕获所有相关信息包并将它们以可读的形式重新组合是极其困难的. 我们不能忽视这样一个事实，即电子邮件传输在某些时候更容易被拦截. 特别是在传输点和在收件人的邮箱中重新组装点, 黑客或互联网服务提供商的粗心和不诚实的员工可以访问这些信息. But it seems to us that this risk is not appreciably greater than the risk that careless or dishonest employees of the phone company will have access to telephone messages, 但据我们所知，没有任何权威机构允许通过电话讨论客户的机密信息, 至少在陆地线路上是这样, 是否违反了规则1.6.

第三, 随着电信法律的发展, it has been made clear that interception of electronic transmissions over the Internet (like telephone conversations) is illegal under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 as amended in 1994. 看到 18 U.S.C. § 2511. 此外，国会在1818年特别规定.S.C. §2517(4)规定:

没有其他特权线路, 口服, 或者按照截获的电子通讯, 或者违反, 本章的规定应失去其特权性质.

这一法律背景产生了若干意见，其中, 根据第四修正案进行搜查和扣押, 传送电子讯息的人士应享有合理的私隐期望. 参见美国诉. Keystone环卫公司, 903 F. 增刊. 803 (M.D. Pa. 1995); 美国诉. 麦克斯韦， 43岁. R. 服务公司. 24 (U.S.A.F. Ct. 有罪的. 应用程序. 1995).

因此，我们认为仅仅使用电子通信并不违反规则1.6 .缺乏特殊因素. 对于任何保密通信，我们承认这一点, 通信内容的敏感性和/或传输的情况可能, 在特定情况下, 要求更高的安全级别. 因此, 在某些情况下，可能有必要使用特殊手段来保护客户的机密. 举个明显的例子, 在与合伙人的澳博app事务所发生纠纷时，代表合伙人的澳博app很容易违反规则1.6 by sending a fax concerning the dispute to the law firm’s mail room if that message contained client confidential information. 有理由认为公司的雇员, 事务所其他澳博app, 确实是公司管理, could very well inadvertently see such a fax and learn of its contents concerning the associate’s dispute with the law firm. 因此, what may ordinarily be permissible—the transmission of confidential information by facsimile—may not be permissible in a particularly factual context.

通过同样的分析, what may ordinarily be permissible—the use of unencrypted electronic transmission—may not be acceptable in the context of a particularly heightened degree of concern or in a particular set of facts. 但是除了这个例外, we find that a lawyer takes reasonable steps to protect his client’s confidence when he uses unencrypted electronically transmitted messages.

调查没有. 97-12-55
一九九八年二月十八日通过

1. This opinion does not consider the security aspects of communications with opposing or adverse parties or counsel because those communications are, 几乎无一例外, 不受澳博app保密规定的约束.
2. 看到Laipidus, 运用现代科技与客户沟通:谨慎行事，运用常识, 休斯顿澳博app.运动. 1996).