By Keelin Bielski
A federal court has held that a client’s disclosure of attorney-provided information to a public artificial intelligence (AI) platform waived attorney-client privilege and did not constitute attorney work product.
In United States v. Heppner, 25 Cr. 503 (JSR), 2026 WL 436479 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), a criminal defendant, Benjamin Heppner, was charged with securities fraud. During Heppner’s arrest, the “Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at Heppner’s home and seized numerous documents and electronic devices,” including 31 documents that memorialized conversations Heppner had with the AI platform Claude regarding his case. Id. at *1. Heppner had been aware that he was the target of an investigation prior to being arrested and not at the direction of counsel he “prepared reports that outlined defense strategy … [and] what he might argue with respect to the facts and the law….” Id. As part of the conversations with Claude, Heppner had input information that Heppner learned from his counsel. Id. at *2. Heppner subsequently asserted privilege over the documents and the Government moved for a determination that the documents were not protected by either attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Id.
Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and his or her attorney that are for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. The court determined that the documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege because (1) the communications were not confidential because Claude was a third-party and Claude’s privacy policy explicitly reserved the right to disclose inputs to other third parties; (2) the communications were not between a client and attorney because Claude was not an attorney; and (3) the communications were not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice because Heppner’s attorneys did not direct him to use Claude. Id. at *2-3.
The work product doctrine protects documents prepared by or at the request of an attorney in anticipation of litigation. The court determined that the documents were not protected by the work product doctrine because, even assuming they were prepared in anticipation of litigation, they were not prepared by or at the request of Heppner’s attorneys. Id.
While this case is a criminal matter regarding an individual, all clients should take care not to disclose attorney-provided information to public AI platforms because such actions could waive attorney-client privilege for documents that may be relevant in future litigation, such as a lawsuit contesting the validity of a patent.
