This case probably impacts these disclaimers concerning e-mail ("we don't represent you so don't send us confidential info") and other aspects of DQ practice. The court in In re Englehardt, 2006 WL 2640415 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st. Dist.] Sept. 11, 2006, orig. proceeding), denied a petition for mandamus sought to overturn the grant of a motion to disqualify filed by a prospective client who had disclosed confidential information to a firm during an initial interview. The court denied the petition to overturn the disqualification order even though the movant had signed a form prior to the interview that stated that nothing disclosed during the interview would be confidential: "The initial consultation is not intended to establish an attorney client relationship... Any confidential matter whch might involve the attorney/client priivlege should be delayed until you have been retained by this office." (Not exactly the words I would have chosen!) (Texas, by the way, doesn't have 1.18 but has a comment to its version of Rule 1.9 (1.09) that seeks to achieve the same purpose.)
E-mail is obviously still "different" in that the client sends the information unilaterally, without an agreement by the lawyer to meet with and receive the information from the client. However, some bar associations are holding that having the e-mail address on the web is an invitation to send information -- and that makes the circumstances fairly parallel. (Also, as noted below, a New York court reached that same conclusion with respect to a statute about faxes -- having a number out there might be "implied consent" to have a fax sent.
Stay tuned...