Dear In Practice,

I’m confused about what to do when visitors copy or blind copy me on emails without warning or explanation. I respect visitor self-determination, and I typically avoid intervening absent an explicit agreement with the visitor about why and how I would do so.

Sometimes, it’s clear to me why I’m included in an email: for information, awareness, or as follow-up after I’ve been involved. Other times, it’s completely unclear. Some visitors copy me but make no mention of my role; others bcc me without any explanation as to why I’ve been included; and there have even been instances in which I’ve been cc:’d or bcc:’d by people I’ve never met.

I’m always unsure how to respond. Should I reply to the message? Should I reach out to the individual or wait for them to contact me directly? Should I engage with others cc’d in the message or do nothing unless I’m explicitly asked?

I want to honor the principles of voluntariness and confidentiality, and I also want to be accessible, responsive, and effective. How can I balance these considerations – and what should I do – in situations where contact is indirect?

An Opportunity to Frame Role

When a visitor copies our office on an email but does not directly contact us about their concern, we generally wait 24-48 hours to observe whether the visitor receives a response. If we do not have confirmation that the visitor has received a response, we generally write back only to the visitor (not copying anyone else,) acknowledging receipt and confirming that we understand we were not the direct recipients of their email.  We will also inform the visitor that if they would like to set up an appointment to speak with one of the ombuds, we would be happy to assist.  This is an opportunity for the ombuds to briefly outline organizational ombuds principles and to appropriately frame our role/limitations should the visitor voluntarily decide to engage with an ombuds now or in the future.

Kathy Murphy, CO-OP, Assistant Ombuds, Fairfax County Public Schools

A Selective Response Based on History with the Case

If I am copied or blind copied by someone I haven't seen in the office, I will contact ONLY the person who emailed, provide general information about the office, and ask if they'd like to schedule an appointment. Occasionally someone will copy me on an email that provides inaccurate information about the Ombuds Office (e.g., they want me to "investigate" an allegation.) In those cases, I copy everyone to gently correct the inaccuracy AND I send a separate note to the person who copied me asking if they'd like to schedule an appointment. If the person copying me is a visitor and it relates to the case, I write to the visitor separately, thank them for the update and invite them to meet again if they’d like.

Dona Yarbrough, Ombuds, Georgia Institute of Technology

A Cry for Help?

In our ombuds team, we have chosen not to leave any such email unanswered. We have chosen to interpret being copied or blind-copied on an email as a subtle cry for help and, thus we reframe the dilemma: an unexpected CC or BCC can be read as an invitation to reaffirm the ombuds’ quiet yet essential presence rather than as a challenge or irritation. We send a timely offer to talk only to the sender to preserve confidentiality and maintain a personal tone, aiming to build trust and open the way for more meaningful engagement. The other (internal) recipients in CC may receive a note stating that the sender has been offered a confidential discussion. In this way, while respecting confidentiality and voluntariness, we allow the university community to know we are here—attentive, caring, and fostering healthy communication.

Veronika Lovrits, Ombuds, University of Luxembourg 

A Consistent Response

You are not alone. We’ve chosen to leverage consistency in our strategic response to all emails. Whether we’re addressed individually and directly, CC’ed, or BCC’ed, our practice for case-related messages is a standard four-sentence reply that invites the sender to schedule a visit and explains why our response is generic. This honors sender self-determination, ensures they know how to engage with our office, affirms our Standards of Practice (including confidentiality), and conveys nothing beyond the fact our office exists.

When there are other recipients, we recognize they haven't opted into the email either, and while "reply all" can powerfully increase visibility/understanding of our work, it also risks perpetuating group dialogue.

When CC’ed, we consistently reply only to the sender unless the office is explicitly invoked in the email. Then, we reply all with our standard response. This provides those CC’ed with our standard invitation, indirectly addresses any expectation of action from our office, and shares how to schedule an appointment. When BCC'ed, we respond only to the sender, prioritizing their confidentiality—informed by their choice not to include us visibly—over accessibility.

Paula Kerezsi, Associate Ombuds & Jivanto van Hemert, University Ombuds, University of Cincinnati

 We value the opportunity to engage with our membership on the dilemmas we face in our roles. Please let us know your perspective on this dilemma in the comment section below.