Citation: United States v. Heppner  (S.D.N.Y. 2026). Read the full text of the opinion by clicking here.

Facts

The defendant used a public AI platform to analyze legal issues and draft materials related to his defense. Some inputs included confidential communications with counsel. The government obtained these materials and sought production.

Issue

Whether communications with a public AI platform are protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Rule

Attorney-client privilege requires confidential communications between a client and attorney for legal advice. Work product protection applies to materials prepared by or at the direction of counsel in anticipation of litigation.

Analysis

The court held that AI is not an attorney, and communications with it are not privileged. Because the AI platform involved third-party data handling, confidentiality was destroyed. The defendant also used AI independently, not at the direction of counsel, so work product protection did not apply.

Holding

The court held that the materials were not protected and must be produced to the government.

Key Quotes

“Disclosure to a third party defeats attorney-client privilege.”

“AI platforms are not attorneys and cannot provide privileged legal advice.”

Takeaway

Using public AI tools with confidential legal information can waive privilege. To preserve protection, AI must be used under attorney direction with safeguards.