Opinion: Companies that want to deploy artificial intelligence for legal purposes must understand the risks that poses and ...

When Bradley Heppner sat down late last year to consult a chatbot about his legal woes, he assumed the conversation was ...

Federal court judges in New York and Michigan have offered split rulings on whether AI prompts seeking information from AI ...

AI chats are not authomatically protected. In U.S. v. Heppner, Claude conversations seized by the FBI were not attorney-client privileged or work product.

Opinion: For attorneys incorporating AI into their practice, the opinion in Heppner provides a roadmap for potentially protecting privilege, but one that requires intentional, measured construction.

Judge Jed Rakoff’s recent opinion in United States v. Heppner has generated quite a bit of discussion among litigators for its conclusion, ...

Recent court cases show asking an AI chatbot questions about your legal case could allow opposing parties to see your confidential trial strategy.

Both cases suggest that use of GenAI tools in litigation should be handled with care.

The rise of AI use in deal processes, whether for analyzing term sheets, summarizing due diligence findings, or identifying mark-up issues, creates ...

Heppner holds that consumer AI use can destroy privilege; Warner holds that AI-assisted drafting is protected work product. Both were decided in the same week. Both may be correct on their own facts.