You have permission to edit this article.
Commentary: Lawyers can't visit clients in prison, so quit monitoring their emails

Commentary: Lawyers can't visit clients in prison, so quit monitoring their emails

  • 0
Legislation could end the unjust Bureau of Prisons policy that requires inmate-attorney emails to be monitored.

Legislation could end the unjust Bureau of Prisons policy that requires inmate-attorney emails to be monitored. (Dreamstime/TNS)

As concern over the impact of COVID-19 on prison populations began to mount, the federal Bureau of Prisons implemented a ban in March that prohibits lawyers from visiting their incarcerated clients. However justifiable the ban may be, it compounds the challenges lawyers face representing those held in custody, a crucial tool lawyers rely on to gather the facts they need to mount an effective defense.

While nothing can replace the way face-to-face interactions help build trust, the bureau should at long last end its unjust policy of requiring inmates to "voluntarily" waive privilege in emails they send to their attorneys through the bureau-provided email system.

A bipartisan group in Congress that includes two California Democrats - Reps. Karen Bass of Los Angeles and Anna G. Eshoo of Menlo Park - sponsored legislation that would do just that. The Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act would prohibit the Bureau of Prisons from monitoring emails between inmates and their attorneys except in certain limited cases. The act passed the House as part of a COVID-19 relief package and awaits action in the Senate.

In our deeply divided times, the fact that the legislation is being co-sponsored by 25 members - 11 Republicans and 14 Democrats - is a sign of its urgent need.

The Bureau of Prisons houses some 163,000 inmates. To encourage them to maintain contact with members of the community, the agency provides most inmates with access to an email system. They are allowed to contact approved individuals who are not in the bureau's custody if the recipient has agreed to receive messages. But as a condition of using the system, inmates must waive their right to confidentiality in the messages they send and receive.

This requirement means that lawyers cannot ethically use the email system to communicate with their clients about substantive and important aspects of their cases because it requires them to violate their obligation to maintain their clients' confidences. The risks to the inmates are not merely hypothetical. Federal prosecutors have, in fact, used emails sent through the system against defendants in court.

Even in the best of times, the bureau's monitoring would be bad policy and of dubious constitutionality. Federal circuit courts have held that the Constitution prohibits prison officials from reading mail between inmates and their attorneys that has been sent through the U.S. Postal Service, some grounding their decision in the First Amendment right to free speech and others in the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. Given that email has become an essential form of business communication, that constitutional protection should extend to email as well.

Federal prosecutors have argued that inmates do not need email to communicate with their clients because alternative methods such as postal mail, unmonitored phone calls and in-person visits are available. But email has become an essential business communications tool because what it offers is nearly instantaneous and it is free.

These are particularly useful qualities given that it can take weeks for an inmate to receive a letter sent via old-fashioned mail, and arranging an unmonitored phone call is an administrative headache that can take as long as a month. When available, an in-person visit may require an attorney to travel a significant distance and wait for hours to meet with their client.

Now, of course, even in-person visits are unavailable.

In addition to requiring the Bureau of Prisons to stop monitoring email between inmates and their attorneys, the legislation under consideration in Congress creates sensible exceptions to its prohibition on monitoring. For example, the emails would not be privileged if the inmate is obtaining advice from the attorney for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud. The bill also would require law-enforcement agents to secure a warrant to access any email sent through the prison email system, just as they have to do to access email sent through a private provider such as Google.

The Bureau of Prisons email monitoring policy was out of step with constitutional values even before COVID-19. The pandemic has only emphasized the need to reform a system that unnecessarily interferes with attorney-client communications and thus with effective representation.



Catherine Crump is director of the Samuelson Clinic for Law, Technology and Public Policy at UC Berkeley Law School. She co-represents the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in a lawsuit seeking records about the Bureau of Prisons monitoring policy. Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, is a criminal defense attorney at Brown, White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles.

Visit the Los Angeles Times at


Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

It can be hard to remember here in the grasp of the coronavirus pandemic, and amid President Donald Trump's persistent displays of arrogant incompetence, that this whole Trump Era is at heart one massive grift. The most recent entry: a report that Trump financial backer and current ambassador to Great Britain, Robert Wood Johnson IV, made inquiries at Trump's request into whether the British ...

Chris Wallace of Fox News is getting justifiably positive reviews for his persistent questioning of President Donald Trump in a long interview that aired on Sunday. But I wish he had pressed further in one exchange. Wallace asked Trump if he would accept the outcome of the November election - by implication, asking the president if he would accept losing. Twice Trump refused to make such a ...

In my role as an attorney for a law firm that handles personal injury cases related to toxic environmental exposures, I see the problem caused by polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, firsthand. The majority of my clients are former firefighters who have been diagnosed with kidney or testicular cancer as a consequence of long-term exposure to these chemicals through the use of firefighter foam. ...

We have been asking the wrong question as we consider dipping our toes into new activities during the coronavirus pandemic: Is it safe? We are looking for a yes or no - a binary answer that harks back to our pre-pandemic lives. Instead, we should evaluate our encounters objectively based on some simple factors that place exposure on a risk spectrum. If we do, we will consolidate our successes ...

The Washington Redskins came to the realization - albeit belatedly - that doing the right thing is more important than clinging to archaic norms and has finally agreed to change its name after years of protests. That evolving mindset must now extend to schools and other institutions that are still exploiting live animals as mascots - a relic of an unenlightened past. Is there any animal more ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alerts

Breaking News