News & Insights

Recent Case of Interest where a Court Ruled that AI Communications Were Not Privileged

Mar 25, 2026

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed the novel issue of whether certain communications with a generative artificial intelligence (AI) platform are protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. See United States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR), 2026 WL 436479 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.17, 2026). The defendant, Bradley Heppner, was charged with securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, making false statements to auditors, and falsifying corporate records. Heppner claimed privilege over documents he independently created using the AI platform “Claude,” arguing that these documents were intended to assist in obtaining legal advice and were shared with his counsel. However, the court ruled that these AI-generated documents were not protected by either privilege because they were not communications between Heppner and his attorney, were not confidential due to Claude’s privacy policy, and were not prepared at the behest of counsel.

The court’s decision emphasized that the attorney-client privilege requires communication between a client and an attorney. Since the AI platform Claude is not an attorney and the communications were not confidential, the privilege did not apply. Additionally, the work product doctrine did not protect the documents because they were not prepared by or at the direction of counsel, nor did they reflect the defense counsel’s strategy at the time of their creation. This case is significant for clients as it clarifies that communications with AI platforms, even when related to legal matters, do not automatically receive the protections of attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Clients should be cautious when using AI tools for legal purposes, as its use can lead to the waiver of privilege.

No information in this communication is intended to constitute specific legal advice. For specific legal advice, please contact an attorney, and if you have any such questions or would like more information about this issue, please contact William “Pat” Huttenbach at 713.752.8616, or email at phuttenbach@craincaton.com.

Thanks,

Pat

United States v Heppner