

Automatic email footers are legally useless - j_baker
http://www.economist.com/node/18529895

======
Zak
It does seem like a footer along the lines of

 _This message is not intended as legal advice. I am not your lawyer._

added to emails from lawyers or other law firm employees casually discussing
legal issues could prevent the accidental creation of an attorney/client
relationship. Something similar might help prevent liability for medical
professionals trying to be helpful.

Of course, the vast majority of these are pointless and annoying. It's not
usually possible to impose any legal obligations on someone simply by sending
them an email.

~~~
marcomonteiro
Actually in certain circumstances it can impose a legal obligation. For
example, I'm licensed to sell real estate in California. As a real estate
agent, I can create an agency relationship by giving advice in an email. This
means that if someone acted on my advice and was harmed by it that they'd have
the right to seek damages.

I believe attorneysand CPA's have the same obligation. Unless it is explicitly
understood that advice given does not create an agency relationship or
something to that effect.

~~~
Zak
You can impose a legal obligation on _yourself_ by sending an email, and
that's what some of these footers are intended to avoid. I don't think you can
impose a legal obligation on the _recipient_ of a message though.

~~~
marcomonteiro
True. I wonder if the same would apply if this disclosure/terms were placed as
the header with something along the lines of "by continuing to read this email
you hereby agree to the following...", similar to TOS on websites.

------
marcomonteiro
I wonder if people actually even notice an email footer these days or if
they're ignored like most advertising. The only footers I ever notice are the
ones that say "Sent from my iPhone [iPad]" but I'm biased and those are
potential customers.

------
corin_
Does anyone not already know this? I thought that even though people still do
it, even they themselves realise it's futile, and they do it just because it
can't do any harm.

------
jacques_chester
I don't think that such a case would rely on contract law. It would probably
be based on the doctrine of confidence or possibly copyright law.

But like many things in life, it's a legal bluff. Just like those signs in
parking lots that say "we accept no responsibility for damage". They're a
legal bluff - the car park is a bailee and has to take responsibility if you
push them on it.

Now it's time for _my_ standard disclaimer:

    
    
        * I am not a lawyer
        * This is not legal advice
        * Your jurisdiction's laws may vary
        * Seek professional legal advice before doing anything, anywhere, at any time

