(Samson, 2005, citing NY CPLR 4548 and Cal. Evid. Code 917 (b)) This means that the rationale behind the ruling was not limited to, or based solely in the attorney-client relationship. The court stated that employee awareness was the issue. The dominant considerations were if the corporation maintained a policy banning personal or other objectionable uses of e-mail, explicitly monitored the use of the employee's computer or e-mail, claimed a right of access to the computer or e-mails, or notified the employee, of the use of monitoring policies, all of which would diminish his or her expectations of privacy. (Samson, 2005) in this case, ACG did not demonstrably enforce any of these measures. This meant employees had a right to assume they were engaged in a private and thus privileged communication with their attorneys. Given this ruling, it is likely that in the future, corporations...

Although this ruling actually worked in ACG's favor, allowing employees to engage in private, protected communication with possible implications for sexual harassment lawsuits, or discrimination regarding hiring and promotion, is likely to motivate corporations to at least claim the right to screen employee e-mails after the fact, and to discourage a free-for-all sense of privacy amongst employees when using a corporate Intranet.
Works Cited

Samson, Mark "In re: Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., et al. 322 B.R. 247. Bankr. S.D.N.Y." (March 21, 2005) Internet Library Subject Matter Index. Retrieved 10 Sept 2006 at http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case435.cfm