Email is one of the most important ways lawyers communicate with colleagues, adversaries, clients, and pretty much everyone else involved in the legal profession. Most lawyers probably send dozens, if not hundreds, of emails during a typical workday. Because email is so ubiquitous, lawyers might not put much thought into whom they copy on a message. However, adding someone to an email chain can sometimes send a message of its own, and lawyers should think twice before unnecessarily copying superiors or other people who have no reason to be involved in a conversation.
Earlier in my career, I sometimes encountered situations in which someone would copy a superior on an email seemingly because they were dissatisfied with how a conversation was progressing. Perhaps they did not receive a response as quickly as they wanted, or perhaps they disagreed with something that had been said. Rather than simply continuing the conversation, the person added a boss or another higher-ranking individual to the email chain. This almost always changed the tone of the discussion immediately.
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
Copying someone’s boss on an email can easily be interpreted as an escalation. Indeed, one of the main reasons people contact a superior is because they are dissatisfied with how a subordinate handled a situation. Anyone who has ever dealt with customer service probably understands this dynamic. Asking to speak with a manager is often seen as petty behavior, and usually means that the customer believes something has gone wrong and wants someone with more authority to intervene.
The same implication can exist in professional emails. If two lawyers have been communicating about a routine issue and one suddenly copies the other lawyer’s boss, the obvious question is why the superior needed to be brought into the discussion. Even if the sender did not intend to complain about the other lawyer, the recipient may reasonably believe that the sender is trying to apply pressure or suggest that the recipient has somehow mishandled the situation.
This can be particularly damaging in the legal profession because relationships matter. Lawyers routinely need favors from adversaries and colleagues. Attorneys request extensions, scheduling accommodations, discovery courtesies, and countless other professional considerations. Someone who feels that another lawyer unnecessarily tried to embarrass them in front of a boss may understandably be less enthusiastic about extending courtesies in the future.
Unnecessary CCs can also undermine relationships within a workplace. Suppose an associate is discussing a routine issue with someone outside the firm and that person suddenly copies a partner supervising the associate. The partner may wonder whether there is a problem that requires attention. The associate may then need to explain the situation even though nothing unusual happened in the first place. A simple email exchange has now potentially created stress and additional work for several people.
Why Experience Still Matters In An AI-Driven Legal Industry
A conversation with Trustpoint.One CEO Christopher Gallagher.
Of course, there are plenty of situations in which copying a superior is entirely appropriate. If someone is already involved in a matter, they should obviously be included on relevant communications. Similarly, if an issue genuinely needs to be escalated after reasonable efforts to resolve it have failed, involving someone with additional authority may be necessary. Lawyers should not avoid copying someone merely because that person happens to be more senior.
But there is a meaningful difference between keeping relevant people informed and using the CC line as leverage. Lawyers sometimes copy people because they believe doing so will make the recipient respond faster or take a request more seriously. That tactic might work in the short term, but it can come with a substantial interpersonal cost. Nobody enjoys feeling as though someone went over their head unnecessarily.
Moreover, copying additional people can make resolving a disagreement more difficult. A person might be willing to compromise or acknowledge a mistake during a private exchange. Once supervisors, clients, or other lawyers are watching the conversation, however, people can become more defensive. Suddenly, everyone has an audience, and positions that could have been softened become harder to abandon without someone worrying about how the concession will look.
Before adding someone’s superior to an email, lawyers should therefore ask themselves a simple question: does this person actually need to be involved? If the answer is yes, there is usually nothing wrong with copying them. But if the real reason is to increase pressure, express displeasure, or make sure someone knows that their boss is watching, it may be better to continue the conversation directly first.
Lawyers already deal with enough unnecessary conflict. We should not create additional friction through something as simple as the CC line of an email. In many circumstances, communicating directly with someone rather than immediately involving their superior demonstrates professional respect. And preserving that respect can be far more valuable than whatever short-term advantage might come from unnecessarily copying the boss.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.