As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes a staple of everyday life, more people are turning to AI platforms to navigate complex legal issues. Whether preparing for an upcoming meeting with a lawyer or trying to make sense of an ongoing lawsuit, many users assume these digital conversations are private. However, a recent federal court decision reveals that sharing information about your case with an AI chatbot can strip away your legal protections.
The Case: What Happened to Bradley Heppner?
In United States v. Heppner, Bradley Heppner faced serious federal criminal charges, including securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and falsifying corporate records. United States v. Heppner, 820 F. Supp. 3d 292, 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2026). Upon learning he was the target of a federal investigation, Heppner decided to use Claude, an AI platform developed by Anthropic, to help build his defense. Id. at 295.
Acting entirely on his own initiative, Heppner used Claude to analyze the facts of his case, draft potential defense strategies, and prepare arguments to counter the prosecution’s case. Id.
When the FBI later executed a search warrant at Heppner’s home, agents seized approximately thirty-one electronic devices and documents containing his communications with Claude, and federal prosecutors sought to review these materials. Id. Heppner argued that the conversations were off-limits under both the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. Id. The Southern District of New York, however, rejected both arguments.
Why AI Conversations Lack Attorney-Client Privilege
First, AI is not an attorney. Id. at 296. Attorney-client privilege depends on a trusting human relationship, such as a professional relationship with a licensed attorney who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline. Id. In Heppner, the court emphasized that no such relationship exists or could exist between an AI user and an AI platform. Id. While AI can be a valuable tool for research or organization, it lacks the professional obligations and legal authority necessary to establish a privileged relationship.
Second, the communications contained in the AI documents were not confidential. Id. at 296. Generally, users retain no substantial privacy interest in conversations they voluntarily disclose to an AI platform. Id. Anthropic’s privacy policy, for example, states that user inputs and outputs may be disclosed to third parties, including law enforcement or in connection with litigation. Id. Because users are on notice that their communications may be disclosed, the court in Heppner found that the defendant could not reasonably expect his conversations with Claude to remain private. Id. at 297
Finally, attorney-client privilege applies only to communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. Id. In Heppner, the defendant argued that he used Claude for the “express purpose of talking to counsel.” Id. However, he did not communicate with Claude at the direction of counsel, and Claude itself explicitly disclaimed providing legal advice. Id. The court therefore concluded that the communications between the defendant and Claude were not privileged at the time they were made. Id. The court also rejected the argument that non-privileged communications become privileged simply because they are later shared with counsel. Id. Because the AI documents would not have been privileged in the defendant’s hands, they did not acquire protection merely because they were transferred to his attorney. Id.
Why the Court Denied Work-Product Protection
The defendant also argued that the AI documents were protected under the work product doctrine, which shields materials prepared by or at the behest of counsel in anticipation of litigation. Id. The court rejected this argument as well.
Although the defendant created the documents while facing criminal charges, he did so entirely on his own initiative. Id. In fact, defense counsel even conceded that the AI documents “were prepared by the defendant on his own volition.” Id. at 298. While counsel acknowledged that the AI documents may have influenced strategy going forward, they did not reflect counsel’s strategy at the time the defendant created them. Id. Accordingly, since the AI documents were neither prepared at the direction of counsel nor reflective of counsel’s strategy, they failed to qualify for work-product protection. Id. at 299.
Considerations for Attorneys & Law Firms
United States v. Heppner serves as a reminder that attorneys should proactively counsel clients about the risks of using AI. Because AI is so accessible, clients may unknowingly expose sensitive, damaging details to AI platforms before ever speaking to counsel. Attorneys should address AI usage during initial consultations and explain the risks of sharing information with these tools. Setting clear expectations early will safeguard client confidentiality and prevent avoidable privilege disputes in court.
Important Tips for Clients
If you are currently facing or anticipating litigation, protect yourself by keeping these guidelines in mind:
- Keep sensitive details private: Never enter confidential facts about your legal case into an AI platform.
- Do not upload lawyer communications: Never upload emails, letters, or advice from your attorney into an AI platform.
- Leave strategy to your attorney: Do not use AI to map out legal strategies.
- Remember AI’s limits: Pursuant to its policy, AI is not: (1) an attorney; (2) able to give legal advice; or (3) a platform where data entered is confidential.
Bottom Line
United States v. Heppner is one of the first rulings to define the boundaries of client AI use and legal privilege. While AI can be a valuable tool for learning general legal concepts or organizing information, it is not a substitute for legal counsel. When a matter has legal significance, it belongs in only one place: with your attorney.
For more information or to seek counsel from our Litigation group, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422. McCarthy Lebit would like to thank law clerk Marlie K. Landskroner for her effort in assisting with the preparation of this legal blog post for The More Report.
_____
This information is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances before taking any action based on the information presented.
