OPINION & ORDER
PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.
Defendant Jose Nunez ("Nunez") is charged with conspiracy to distribute, and possessing with intent to distribute, controlled substances. Nunez now moves to preclude disclosure of communications purportedly protected by the attorney-client privilege. The messages at issue were not produced, inadvertently or otherwise, by Nunez or by his then-attorney, Dwane Smith ("Smith"). Instead, the Government seized Nunez's emails and online chat records with Smith, pursuant to a warrant dated November 23, 2012, served on Google which hosted Nunez's email account. The Government contends that (1) Nunez waived the attorney-client privilege, (2) two of the mails are subject to the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, (3) an online chat was conducted, in part, for the purposes of legal advice, and (4) the remaining emails were not confidential communications. Nunez's motion to preclude the use of the aforementioned communications is granted.
On September 10, 2012, Nunez and a co-defendant were arrested and subsequently charged with conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, controlled substances. On September 11, 2012, Nunez retained Smith, who had previously represented him in a number of civil matters. Nunez regarded Smith as his personal attorney. On November 29, 2012, the Government provided Nunez with, inter alia, a search warrant application for Nunez's Google email account (the "Gmail Account"). After receiving the contents of the Gmail Account from Google, the Government provided the contents of the account to Nunez on January 2, 2013. Several weeks later, on January 31, 2013, the Government mailed Smith to alert him that the Gmail Account contained approximately 460 emails between Smith and Nunez, which the Government had not read and which it would maintain separately from the other emails in the account.
Smith asked to be relieved as counsel for Nunez on April 3, 2013, due to potential conflicts of interest presented by the emails between himself and Nunez. New counsel was appointed for Nunez on April 18, 2013, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, and, on May 1, 2013, Nunez asserted for the first time that the emails between Smith and Nunez that were contained in the Gmail Account were subject to the attorney-client privilege, which he was not waiving. At the Court's direction, a Government "Wall Assistant" reviewed all of the emails between Smith and Nunez, identifying 78 communications regarding which there was a colorable claim of privilege (the "Potentially Privileged Emails"), and eight of which the Government contends are beyond the scope of that privilege, regardless of the waiver issue (the "Specified Emails").
I. Legal Standard
"The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law. Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice, " Upjohn Co. v. U.S. , 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) (citation omitted). "In order to balance this protection of confidentiality with the competing value of public disclosure, however, courts apply the privilege only where necessary to achieve its purpose' and construe the privilege narrowly because it renders relevant information undiscoverable'" U.S. v. Meija , 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting In re County of Erie , 473 F.3d 413, 418 (2d Cir. 2007)). The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing that the communications in question are "(1) between a client and his or her attorney, (2)... intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential, [and] (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice." Id.
Though it has rejected the notion that "all inadvertent disclosures mandate a finding of waiver, " In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 188 (2d Cir. 2000), the Second Circuit has not addressed what factors control whether a party has waived the attorney-client privilege via inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications. As a result, the parties disagree as to the applicable law. Nunez relies on the principle that la In attorney may not waive the privilege without his client's consent" because "the privilege belongs solely to the client and may only be waived by him." In re Von Bulow , 828 F.2d 94, 100-01 (2d Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, the Second Circuit went on to explain that
A client may... by his actions impliedly waive the privilege or consent to disclosure. And an attorney may, in appropriate circumstances, possess an implied authority to waive the privilege on behalf of his client. Moreover, it is the client's responsibility to insure continued confidentiality of his communications.
Id. (quotations omitted). The Government, in turn, relies principally on a test set out by the Tenth Circuit, which has not previously been adopted in this district. See U.S. v. Ary , 518 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2008).
Courts in this district have applied a four-factor test first set out in Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co. , 104 F.R.D. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), in order to assess whether the attorney-client privilege has been waived through inadvertent disclosure. The Lois factors include "(1) the reasonableness of the precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure, (2) the time taken to rectify the error, (3) the scope of the discovery and the extent of the disclosure, " and "(4) an over[arching] issue of fairness and the protection of an appropriate privilege which... must be judged against the care or negligence with which the privilege is guarded." Id. at 105. Although "[t]he four Lois factors are not perfectly applicable to this case because of the different discovery rules governing criminal cases" and civil cases, in which they are normally applied,  "the Lois test is still a useful framework to apply" and ...