Are emails as good as snail mail?

Roubled

Hello
I'm wondering if emails have the same standing as paper letters. I've come across a number of situations where solicitors seem reluctant to provide email copies of letters sent despite the fact they're sitting in their computers. Can one demand email copies? I'm thinking of it as being infinitely easier to keep track of correspondence if it's on one's computer as opposed to leafing through sheets of paper.

Victor

Roubled wrote: »

Hello
I'm wondering if emails have the same standing as paper letters. I've come across a number of situations where solicitors seem reluctant to provide email copies of letters sent despite the fact they're sitting in their computers. Can one demand email copies? I'm thinking of it as being infinitely easier to keep track of correspondence if it's on one's computer as opposed to leafing through sheets of paper.

A few issues:
* No signature
* No letterhead
* Much less control over inte3rception and/or copying

MarkAnthony

The whole postal rule thing OP. Have a google and a giggle, great pub trivia!

Can you demand them? Well you tell me you're employing the solicitor! Unless you're not in which case no you can't the other side will be as careful as possible.

I know of one very successful barrister who doesn't even have a mobile phone. Some people have picadillos, if you don't like them in a solicitor hire someone else.

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

A few issues:
* No signature
* No letterhead
* Much less control over inte3rception and/or copying

you can sign electronic docs, and digitally sign/encrypt them in addition
You can have a letterhead on electronic docs
You can copy a letter with ease these days, unless you're a lawyer with a pecadillo against mobile phones or scanners or xerox or...

234

Victor wrote: »

A few issues:
* No signature
* No letterhead
* Much less control over inte3rception and/or copying

PDF

CIARAN_BOYLE

Roubled wrote: »

Hello
I'm wondering if emails have the same standing as paper letters. I've come across a number of situations where solicitors seem reluctant to provide email copies of letters sent despite the fact they're sitting in their computers. Can one demand email copies? I'm thinking of it as being infinitely easier to keep track of correspondence if it's on one's computer as opposed to leafing through sheets of paper.

Get a scanner and scan it into your computer yourself.

nuac

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The whole postal rule thing OP. Have a google and a giggle, great pub trivia!

Can you demand them? Well you tell me you're employing the solicitor! Unless you're not in which case no you can't the other side will be as careful as possible.

I know of one very successful barrister who doesn't even have a mobile phone. Some people have picadillos, if you don't like them in a solicitor hire someone else.

Some barristers have taken to the new technology like ducks to water. Some not so.

Back in the sixties I had installed telex in my office so that the outer world would not be too cut off from God's own county ( Mayo)

I was trying to get a very eminent barrister to settle a draft notice. The matter was urgent, His form was to draft longhand, and then leave the draft aside until he had a chance to look at it again or check something, or whatever. The final opinion or draft would come in beautiful handwriting, in the fullness of time

I told him the Law Library now had a telex operator and all he had to do was dictate his draft to her, and that it would print out in my office.

That worked, but was a culture shock to my eminent colleague..

He had difficulty in accepting that way of working

Roubled

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Get a scanner and scan it into your computer yourself.

That just takes too much time especially considering a solicitor charging for his time already has the copies sitting in his computer and only has to attach them to an email.

I'm mostly thinking in terms of organisation. I find it far easier to keep track of things on my laptop instead of leafing through sheets of paper.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Roubled wrote: »

That just takes too much time especially considering a solicitor charging for his time already has the copies sitting in his computer and only has to attach them to an email.

I'm mostly thinking in terms of organisation. I find it far easier to keep track of things on my laptop instead of leafing through sheets of paper.

Except the copies on his computer aren't on letterhead or signed so are substantially different from the copies that you have.

Roubled

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Except the copies on his computer aren't on letterhead or signed so are substantially different from the copies that you have.

The content is exactly the same plus an email carries the email address of the sender. For the purposes of organisation the email copies are a lot easier to locate and organise. I'm wondering if an email address has been tested as proof of origin in court. It would even seem if anything more reliable than a piece of paper on which anything can be printed.

MarkAnthony

Roubled wrote: »

The content is exactly the same plus an email carries the email address of the sender. For the purposes of organisation the email copies are a lot easier to locate and organise. I'm wondering if an email address has been tested as proof of origin in court. It would even seem if anything more reliable than a piece of paper on which anything can be printed.

That's an interesting one, this is all very hazy as many pints have been consumed since I did this is contract law and it's not so interesting as to make me do any work on the subject but; snail mail, given the postmark etc. has quite a bit of case law around it and as general acceptance that the mail service have no interest in opening your letter and changing your offer from €10,000 to €10,0000 (sic). Post is generally accepted to have gone from A to B without interference unless evidence can be presented to the contrary.

Electronic communication is also generally accepted to have gone from A to B without interference for the purposes of contract but there is a some level of scepticism (new technologies telex,fax,email et al) in the case law (from my limited reading). So it might be easier to challenge the content. I remember some discussion of control and servers and my head hurts.

All that said e-commerce act would also be instructive.

Roubled

MarkAnthony wrote: »

That's an interesting one, this is all very hazy as many pints have been consumed since I did this is contract law and it's not so interesting as to make me do any work on the subject but; snail mail, given the postmark etc. has quite a bit of case law around it and as general acceptance that the mail service have no interest in opening your letter and changing your offer from €10,000 to €10,0000 (sic). Post is generally accepted to have gone from A to B without interference unless evidence can be presented to the contrary.

Electronic communication is also generally accepted to have gone from A to B without interference for the purposes of contract but there is a some level of scepticism (new technologies telex,fax,email et al) in the case law (from my limited reading). So it might be easier to challenge the content. I remember some discussion of control and servers and my head hurts.

All that said e-commerce act would also be instructive.

I ask because I have at times encountered a reluctance or even a complete aversion on the part of some solicitors to using email. I find it more efficient and easier to organised even if it has to be backed up by a paper copy for legal purposes. Having said that I have know a number of people who work for the post office. I have no idea why snail mail would be considered more reliable than email. When a letter is sent by ordinary post once it's in the PO box there is no way of tracking it and if it's lost no way of ever knowing what happened to it.

MarkAnthony

Roubled wrote: »

I ask because I have at times encountered a reluctance or even a complete aversion on the part of some solicitors to using email. I find it more efficient and easier to organised even if it has to be backed up by a paper copy for legal purposes. Having said that I have know a number of people who work for the post office. I have no idea why snail mail would be considered more reliable than email. When a letter is sent by ordinary post once it's in the PO box there is no way of tracking it and if it's lost no way of ever knowing what happened to it.

To be fair that's a lay and anecdotal perspective, the law by it's very nature will take some time to test new things (test in the legal sense).

Some solicitors may avoid email as it simply creates a more intense work period. Much easier to send a letter and it take three days to get a reply that probably requires another letter to be sent. Also some people be they solicitors, scientists or chefs are just Luddites.

hullaballoo

Dey dook dur dawbs.

Uno my Uno.

From a legal perspective an email is just as good as a letter, it counts as writing for Contracts and Property issues and is just as enforceable as a letter.

From a work perspective it might be different, emails are easier to disseminate which may be good or bad where as letters are often more formal and slower which equally may be good or bad.

Most solicitors use either and both when appropriate to expedite matters or manage workflow.

Roubled

MarkAnthony wrote: »

To be fair that's a lay and anecdotal perspective, the law by it's very nature will take some time to test new things (test in the legal sense).

Some solicitors may avoid email as it simply creates a more intense work period. Much easier to send a letter and it take three days to get a reply that probably requires another letter to be sent. Also some people be they solicitors, scientists or chefs are just Luddites.

One of the effects of using email may be of benefit to solicitors by the instant nature of it. If a client is paying an hourly rate the impulse to shoot of emails with any incidental question that crosses one's mind soon sends the bill upward. It does mean more work for the brief so if they are working on price it will increase the amount of work. People theses days thanks to the internet expect to have questions answered instantly.

Roubled

MarkAnthony wrote: »

To be fair that's a lay and anecdotal perspective, the law by it's very nature will take some time to test new things (test in the legal sense).

Some solicitors may avoid email as it simply creates a more intense work period. Much easier to send a letter and it take three days to get a reply that probably requires another letter to be sent. Also some people be they solicitors, scientists or chefs are just Luddites.

One of the effects of using email may be of benefit to solicitors by the instant nature of it. If a client is paying an hourly rate the impulse to shoot off emails with any incidental question that crosses one's mind soon sends the bill upward. It does mean more work for the brief so if they are working on price since by the same token it will increase the amount of work. People theses days, thanks to the internet, expect to have questions answered instantly.
,

MarkAnthony

Roubled wrote: »

One of the effects of using email may be of benefit to solicitors by the instant nature of it. If a client is paying an hourly rate the impulse to shoot of emails with any incidental question that crosses one's mind soon sends the bill upward. It does mean more work for the brief so if they are working on price it will increase the amount of work. People theses days thanks to the internet expect to have questions answered instantly.

Despite my flippant response, many solicitors don't want this happening which is again why they might not be so willing to engage with it.

People may want instant responses but again that's not the framework the legal profession works in and rightly so.

To illustrate the point I've a solicitor who would be in meetings most of the day, no opportunity to respond to emails - get get responses back sometimes as late at half-past midnight. Where he can see I'm just having a conniption he just ignores me, and rightly so. Again, you go with the solicitor/plumber/spaky that you get on with.

Roubled

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Despite my flippant response, many solicitors don't want this happening which is again why they might not be so willing to engage with it.

People may want instant responses but again that's not the framework the legal profession works in and rightly so.

To illustrate the point I've a solicitor who would be in meetings most of the day, no opportunity to respond to emails - get get responses back sometimes as late at half-past midnight. Where he can see I'm just having a conniption he just ignores me, and rightly so. Again, you go with the solicitor/plumber/spaky that you get on with.

I didn't think you were being flippant. It's obviously a double edged sword. I know one person who was paying €250 and hour (with vat). It was only when she got the bill all the emails added up. If a solicitor is going through a slow period of business it can easily be used to generate income....not that any Irish brief would actually do that of course...

MarkAnthony

Roubled wrote: »

I didn't think you were being flippant. It's obviously a double edged sword. I know one person who was paying €250 and hour (with vat). It was only when she got the bill all the emails added up. If a solicitor is going through a slow period of business it can easily be used to generate income....not that any Irish brief would actually do that of course...

Possibly but I wouldn't like to be explaining that one once a complaint went in, unless of course the emails were all genuine questions with genuine answers. I'd also have expected the solicitor to have managed the client better.

Roubled

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Possibly but I wouldn't like to be explaining that one once a complaint went in, unless of course the emails were all genuine questions with genuine answers. I'd also have expected the solicitor to have managed the client better.

I wouldn't have though the customer could have any grounds for complaint. If the client emails questions and gets answers it's their own fault. It's where the modern impulse to google everything meets the hourly paid legal fee instead of free search results that the bills start to mount.

On the other hand I've encountered (all older) solicitors who despite writing their letters on computer and mailing them are still shy about attaching copies to an email just for the record even when specifically requested to do so.

MarkAnthony

Roubled wrote: »

I wouldn't have though the customer could have any grounds for complaint. If the client emails questions and gets answers it's their own fault. It's where the modern impulse to google everything meets the hourly paid legal fee instead of free search results that the bills start to mount.

On the other hand I've encountered (all older) solicitors who despite writing their letters on computer and mailing them are still shy about attaching copies to an email just for the record even when specifically requested to do so.

There's an expected level of fair dealing expected. Think hypocondriac and doctor. Does the doctor take money every time the patient pitches up or does he say 'you need help'. A corollary is a solicitor saying 'look these are interesting questions but have little effect on your case' or this is a complicated case, lets have a consultation for an hour rather than me charging you for 20 minutes every time you do a Colombo.

Nuac is about 140 and seems to embrace new technology with some enthusiasm. Conversely I've met 30 year olds who can barely turn on a computer.

Engage a younger solicitor if the older ones don't meet your requirements.

crystalmice

There is no logical reason not to send a copy of a letter by email, particularly if it is a scanned PDF of the original signed letter. In my experience, the attitude to email varies massively depending on the type of firm. Email is the lifeblood of the large corporate firms, and all letters sent by snail mail are usually sent by email too. Client queries are often via email, but I don't think there is an expectation of immediate answers once client expectations are managed- there is nothing wrong with replying with a holding response to say you will consider the question and respond in a few days. Even very large transactions are often closed via email exchange of signed pages. On the other hand, I often come across a reluctance on the part of smaller firms to send anything substantive by email.

I would mention that the large firms use sophisticated software / IT systems to ensure absolute security of their emails, and to strip out any metadata that could be used to identify hidden info in an electronic document. I imagine this could be prohibitively expensive for a small practice.

Uno my Uno.

Its important to remember that letters are more than just pieces of paper. An ill-considered or rushed letter could have serious adverse consequences for a solicitor or his client, particularly so if it contains sensitive or privileged information.

It would be good sense to consider carefully the possible effects of emailing copies of letters to someone, especially so if they contained advices or private information. Once an email is sent it can be immediately replicated and spread to litterally anyone, with the result that it could fall into the possession of the wrong person. At least with snail mail the letter must be physically replicated or scanned before being disseminated meaning that it is easily controlled and protected. So whilst not wanting to send copies of letters by emails might be perceived as a resistance to change or Ludditeism it may in fact simply be well placed caution.

Roubled

crystalmice wrote: »

I would mention that the large firms use sophisticated software / IT systems to ensure absolute security of their emails, and to strip out any metadata that could be used to identify hidden info in an electronic document. I imagine this could be prohibitively expensive for a small practice.

One problem I've encountered is the lack of an automatic response system for the receipt of emails. After sending an email there is no way of knowing it it has arrived at the solicitors address. Even having received an email and reading it most don't think to pop off a quick acknowledgement. I can't imagine the software to issue an auto-receipt could be all that expensive since I've encountered from the websites of even very small businesses.

Victor

Roubled wrote: »

One problem I've encountered is the lack of an automatic response system for the receipt of emails. After sending an email there is no way of knowing it it has arrived at the solicitors address. Even having received an email and reading it most don't think to pop off a quick acknowledgement. I can't imagine the software to issue an auto-receipt could be all that expensive since I've encountered from the websites of even very small businesses.

Automatic receipts let spammers know that your email address is real.

If receipts are wanted (usually a tick box), you can ask for one and one can be sent.

Roubled

Victor wrote: »

Automatic receipts let spammers know that your email address is real.

If receipts are wanted (usually a tick box), you can ask for one and one can be sent.

I've actually tried putting "please acknowledge receipt of this email" at the bottom of messages to no avail.

gctest50

Roubled wrote: »

I've actually tried putting "please acknowledge receipt of this email" at the bottom of messages to no avail.

you can get receipts for delivery and when it was read


eg Outlook :

https://support.office.microsoft.com/en-ie/article/Get-delivery-and-read-receipt-confirmations-b4abad96-398d-4ba3-9fed-bfb988642d75