02/26/2026
Last week, a federal judge in New York ruled that materials a criminal defendant generated using a consumer AI tool were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. This should be a wake-up call for anyone facing even the possibility of a future dispute.
The defendant in the linked case had used the AI on his own and without his attorney's direction. The platform's own privacy policy disclosed it could use inputs for model training and share data with third parties including the government. The AI also provided the usual disclaimer that it could not provide legal advice.
The law on privilege and AI will have to evolve as AI becomes more ubiquitous and the lines between lawyering and AI continue to blur. There will be new arguments and new facts that could drive new looks by courts. Here, Judge Rakoff applied traditional privilege principles and declined to create new ones for AI.
Applying traditional privilege rules to AI is the classic square peg and round hole. But at least for now, the message is clear that if you are using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any consumer AI tool to organize your thoughts about a dispute, draft a timeline, vent about a situation, or prepare to talk to your lawyer, those interactions may later be discoverable in the event of litigation. This includes a business dispute, a divorce, a personal injury claim, or a regulatory inquiry. Anything.
Before you ask your AI anything sensitive, first ask yourself whether you would want that content in a deposition exhibit if things go sideways in unexpected ways. This is a new and extraordinarily unsettled area of law, and in those settings unwary litigants can find themselves in very difficult positions.
Ironically, developments like this one are already prompting important conversations in the legal community about how attorneys and clients should be thinking about AI use from the very start of any matter.
MEMORANDUM as to Bradley Heppner. At a pretrial conference in this matter held on February 10, 2026, the Court, after hearing the arguments of counsel, granted from the bench the Government's motion for a ruling that certain writtenexchanges that defendant Bradley Heppner had with a generativeartifi...