Court Rejects Privilege Claim Over AI-Generated Documents
Time 1 Minute Read

A Feb. 17 federal court ruling has found that neither the attorney-client privilege nor work product protection apply to a criminal defendant’s self-directed prompts and large language model outputs.  In the ruling in USA v. Heppner, US District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the production of 31 documents generated by the defendant using Anthropic’s Claude, notwithstanding that the defendant had incorporated information obtained from counsel and later shared the AI outputs with his attorneys. In a recent legal update, Hunton partner Meghan Podolny and associate Jessie Purtell discuss how the ruling provides early judicial guidance on privilege issues related to AI-generated materials, an area with limited existing case law.

Although the ruling occurred in a criminal proceeding, the reasoning should apply equally across all litigation.  The ruling could therefore have serious implications for policyholders in coverage litigation and mandates a cautionary approach to client-guided “research” using open ai models.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The Connecticut Attorney General recently issued a legal memorandum regarding the application of existing Connecticut laws, such as the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, to the use of artificial intelligence.

Time 1 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making.

Time 3 Minute Read

SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making. It would amend provisions in the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure to address confidentiality, accuracy, bias, and citation verification for attorneys, and to prohibit delegation of arbitral decision-making to AI while adding disclosure and responsibility requirements for arbitrators.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page