With the surge in AI usage, courts are addressing its implications for attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine in legal contexts. Recent rulings, particularly in United States v. Heppner, highlight the risk that communications with AI tools may not be protected. The court determined that inputs to non-enterprise AI tools do not qualify for such protections, as the privilege only extends to lawyer-client communications. In contrast, Warner v. Gilbarco recognized AI as a tool, allowing certain AI-generated materials to remain protected as work product. This discrepancy underscores the importance of cautious AI use in legal matters; clients must ensure any AI tools employed safeguard confidentiality, ideally under lawyer guidance. Legal professionals should be proactive in choosing AI platforms that prioritize confidentiality and understanding courts’ varying interpretations of AI tool-related protections. For attorneys navigating legal tech, safeguarding privilege is essential in today’s evolving landscape.
