Court Forces Disclosure of AI Searches about Client's Case

The Federal Court recently fired a warning shot to all attorneys and clients who use AI.  In the case U.S. v. Heppner, the Southern District of New York found that the federal government could access all of a person’s Claude AI search history relative to the case the government brought against them.  This ruling means that a person may be forced to disclose their AI searches and results relative to any potential legal claim, so everyone should be very careful how they use Claude, ChatGPT, or any other AI software when dealing with a potential legal claim.

The defendant in this matter, Mr. Heppner, had given Claude AI a description of his case and asked for a summary of potential legal and factual arguments he could use to help defend himself.  The government then requested to see all of those searches, and Mr. Heppner’s attorneys tried to shield those from being revealed to the government.  To do this, Mr. Heppner’s attorneys argued that Mr. Heppner’s Claude AI searches were protected as 1) attorney client privilege and 2) work product documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.  The Court did not agree.

In his ruling, judge Jed S. Rakoff found that neither privilege applied and the government could get access to Mr. Heppner’s Claude AI searches and results about his case.  This should set off alarm bells for every attorney and client in Massachusetts.  If you ask an AI program anything about your case or claim, expect the other side to potentially see those searches and results.  Attorneys: expect to get these requests as part of discovery.

The Court found that there was no attorney client privilege, because Mr. Heppner was sharing information with an AI chatbot which specifically states in its user disclosures that it uses the information to both train itself and may share with other companies or governments.  Attorney client privilege, the court found, is specifically between two humans, one of which is an attorney who has a fiduciary and ethical duty to the client.  An AI chatbot has no such responsibilities to the client and so attorney client privilege did not apply.

The Court further found that there was no work product protection for the AI searches, because Mr. Heppner undertook the searches on his own.  Even if he later shared those searches with his attorneys with the intention of using them to help with his legal defense, that does not then reach backwards to apply the privilege.

The case might be different, judge Rakoff opined, if Mr. Heppner’s attorneys had told him to use AI for his case.  However, this question was not definitively answered as those were not the facts in this case, so attorneys and clients should still be wary even in that case.

As neither privilege applied, the Court ruled that the government was entitled to see all of Mr. Heppner’s Claude AI searches and their results about his case.

This case should make every attorney and client think twice before using AI relative to a case.  Clients who use AI in this way may be forced to give all of their searches and results to the other side in litigation, who can then interrogate them about it and use it against them at trial.

The law relative to AI use is still being written and on a case-by-case basis.  As the Court in Heppner stated, this was an issue of first impression.  Therefore, it would behoove all clients and attorneys to proceed cautiously when using AI relative to their cases.