Does your email have a tail? That cautious, or cautionary, language at the end of a message alerting recipients that the tax advice expressed within must not be used to evade taxes; or that the personal views are not the views of the company; or that the information is privileged, confidential, and should be returned to sender and deleted?

    Boilerplate disclaimers are used not just by lawyers, but also by bankers, consultants, and even media organizations like The Economist Group. Last year, the Wall Street Journal called out an investment bank research firm for a disclaimer that was more than 2,500 words long.

    How did this come to pass? How did our email addenda grow so ridiculous?

    Though there's little case law that addresses the email disclaimer, lawyers who have studied the matter (and who themselves use email disclaimers) say the disclaimer is both increasingly common and fairly useless. There are exceptions -- on tax advice, a disclaimer is mandated by IRS Circular 230 -- but on the whole, they ain't worth much. John Hutchins, a partner at Troutman Sanders, says they are usually redundant, "kind of like a belt with suspenders."

    A better analogy might be suspenders with no pants. Many disclaimers -- particularly of the "This is confidential. Do not forward. Delete and return to sender" variety -- are simply one-sided contracts. Without prior agreement from the other side, they're unenforceable.

    "If you send something without a confidentiality agreement already in place, you can't say, 'Oh, you're bound by my little disclaimer at the bottom of my email.' From a contract perspective it just doesn't work," Hutchins says. He compares them to "shrinkwrap agreements," or terms and conditions agreements that cannot be read until after purchasing and opening a product -- like software back when it was bought in a box -- which courts have voided.

    Several years ago, New York Times reporter Alex Berenson figured as much when he received an email from a lawyer that had been intended for another lawyer, Brad Berenson. The email was somewhat sensitive, regarding settlement negotiations of an investigation brought against drug maker Eli Lilly. Reporter Berenson was covering Eli Lilly's legal troubles, and though he says he already knew the information contained in the email, he was not moved by the boilerplate language to destroy the email as demanded.

    If disclaimers are toothless, why use them? Within the legal profession, they make some sense. Lawyers have an ethical duty to protect client confidences. This means both alerting the recipient that content is privileged, and more or less abiding by email disclaimers that assert confidentiality. (The specifics vary state by state -- in some, lawyers are required to destroy an inadvertently received email protected by client privilege; in others they may just have to notify the sender). The email disclaimer, in fact, was a natural evolution for the legal universe: Lawyers include similar language in the form of a legend on top of paper documents and fax cover sheets. Lawrence Spiegel, a partner and general counsel at Skadden Arps, notes that to not include a disclaimer of this sort -- particularly when all other firms do -- could be considered a breach of that ethical duty.

    你的电子邮件后面附有免责声明吗？免责声明通常出现在正文内容之后，措辞很谨慎，而且带有警告意味，提醒收件人邮件中所给出的避税建议不可用于逃税；或是发件人的个人看法不代表其所供职机构的看法；又或是邮件的内容是保密或机密信息，收件人应当将其传回发件人，同时删除邮件。

    如今，这种模版式的免责声明不仅律师在用，银行家、顾问甚至经济学人集团（The Economist Group）等传媒机构都在使用。去年，《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal ）报道了一家投资银行研究机构，其免责声明居然长达2500余字。

    这也能行？我们电子邮件后面的免责声明怎会变得如何荒唐？

    虽然几乎没有关于邮件免责声明的判例法，但研究了免责声明问题的律师（他们自己也用免责声明）表示，一方面，免责声明的使用越来越普遍，另一方面，它们基本没什么用。当然，也有例外，美国国税局230号条例就规定，提供避税建议的邮件中必须附上免责声明。但整体而言，免责声明没什么用。长盛律师事务所（Troutman Sanders）合伙人约翰•哈钦斯表示，附上免责声明常常是画蛇添足，多此一举。

    更好的一种比喻是“脱了裤子放屁”。许多免责声明，尤其是诸如“这是机密。请不要转发。请立即删除并返回给发送者。”这类。它们仅仅是单方协议。与另一方当事人没有任何事先约定，不具备强制性。

    哈钦斯说：“如果你发送了些没有附上保密协议的东西，你就不能拍着胸脯说，‘你必须遵守我在邮件下方附上的那巴掌大的免责声明’。可惜从法律合同角度来看，这样的做法毫无用处”。他将这种协议称为“拆封合同”——你必须购买或拆开商品才能看到合同或协议，就像你只有购买软件后才能看到其协议一样。法院并不支持这样的协议。

    几年前，《纽约时报》（New York Times ）记者亚历克斯•贝伦森就这样干过。他当时收到了一名律师发给布拉德•贝伦森律师的邮件。内容颇为敏感，涉及到毒贩艾莉•莉莉一案的调查情况。记者贝伦森当时正在报道这起案件，虽然他表示邮件中所涉及的内容都是他本来就知道的，但他并未按照邮件中免责声明所述，将邮件删除。

    既然免责声明毫无用处，那大家为什么还用呢？从律师的角度或许能解释一二。律师的职业特性要求他们必须保护客户的隐私。这意味着如果双方都能互相提醒邮件内容涉及机密，那他们多少也会遵守一下免责声明中的保密协议。（具体细节随地方法律而不同。在某些州，律师必须删除不慎收到的涉及客户隐私的邮件；还有一些州，律师可以选择通知发送者。）电子邮件上的免责声明实际上是法律文书的自然演进：所有律师都会在文件或传真的封面上放上这些大同小异的文字。劳伦斯•斯皮格是美国世达律师事务所（Skadden Arps）合伙人兼首席法律顾问，他表示所有事务所都是这样做的，如果有人不这样做，肯定会被认为没有职业道德。

    But in those less modern forms, disclaimers were used selectively and genuinely. With email, they are often attached regardless of content, a fact that Spiegel and others say can undermine whatever standing they may have. Disclaimers also tend to be appended to the bottom of emails, making the "do not read" clause preposterous. (Scott Talkov, a lawyer with Reid & Hellyer, advises attorneys to append the disclaimer at the top of an email.)

    Spiegel doubts placement of the disclaimer matters but says in general: "They're weakest when you need the other side's agreement. Where they're strongest is when they put the recipient on notice so they don't have a misunderstanding or strategically seek to claim a misunderstanding which could have legal consequences." For example, courts have enforced disclaimers that assert any deal agreed upon in email is not binding without a written contract.

    But, even when they're only giving notice, disclaimers are not foolproof. Talkov pointed me toRomero v. Romero, a case from 2011 involving feuding family members in California, one of whom sent an email declaring "payback is a bitch" and that email recipients "still have a gigantic debt to pay to me, which will be paid no matter what." The e-mailer signed off "Your most determined, unstoppable, and visceral enemy," and then appended a homemade disclaimer reading:

    "DISCLAIMER: Not one word herein should be construed by anyone as meaning violent or threatening intentions, and instead the entire contents is to be taken by the strict literary meaning. There have not been, and will be any elucidated threats of violence or intent, either expressed or implied, within the entirety of this document."

    A judge did not find it compelling and issued a protective order.

    As for the latest, most fashionable form of email disclaimer -- "Sent from my iPhone, please excuse the typos" and its many other derivations -- it works! According to a study from Stanford, messages that include errors are perceived to be far more credible when a mobile device disclaimer is attached.

    对于法律文书这类老古董，免责声明的使用还算是慎重而真诚。但在电子邮件上，它们如洪水般泛滥，完全不顾及邮件内容。斯皮格和一些人认为这样的做法无疑违背了这类声明的本意。而且免责声明更多的时候出现在邮件末尾，让“不要阅读”这类警告毫无意义。Reid & Hellyer律师事务所的斯科特•托科夫建议律师们应当把免责声明放在邮件开头。）

    斯皮格认为免责声明放在邮件开头还是末尾无关紧要。他笼而统之地说：“需要收件人同意的免责声明最脆弱。最有力的那种免责声明是旨在通知收件人，以免其产生误解，或者声称产生了误解，以至于造成法律后果。”比如曾有过这样的判例，电子邮件后附的免责声明称，除非签署了书面合同，否则邮件中达成的任何协议都不具备法律效力，法院在判案时就采纳了免责声明中的内容。

    但是，靠免责声明来通知收件人也并非万无一失。托科夫以2011年的罗梅罗诉罗梅罗案为例。这起案件发生在加州，涉及一个长期不和的家庭，其中一名家庭成员发送了一封电子邮件，称“恶有恶报”，并声称收件人“仍然欠了我很多很多债，我必将以牙还牙，以眼还眼。”邮件署名为“你无比坚定、势不可挡、发自肺腑的敌人”。邮件后面附加了自己撰写的免责声明：

    “免责声明：本邮件中所有内容都不应被理解为包含暴力或威胁意图；相反，整封邮件应按照其字面意思理解。本邮件全部内容都未包含、也不会包含任何关于暴力威胁或意图的明示或暗示。”

    不过，这份免责声明没有令法官信服，法官还是向邮件收件人签发了保护令。

    电子邮件免责声明最新、最时尚的形式则是——“本邮件是通过iPhone发送，请原谅其中的打字错误”，或是其它类似的说法——这倒是确实管用。斯坦福大学（Stanford）的一项研究显示，附上类似的免责声明能大大提高存在打字错误的电子邮件在收件人心目中的可信度。（财富中文网）

    译者：项航