Recent federal court decisions have yielded divergent outcomes regarding the applicability of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to materials generated using artificial intelligence (AI) tools. These rulings underscore the evolving legal landscape as courts grapple with the integration of AI in legal processes.
In United States v. Heppner, the Southern District of New York addressed whether documents created by a defendant using a publicly available AI platform were protected under attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. The defendant, Bradley Heppner, independently utilized Anthropic’s AI tool, Claude, to generate documents related to his legal defense, which he later shared with his attorneys. The court determined that these documents were not privileged, emphasizing that communications with an AI platform do not constitute confidential attorney-client communications. Additionally, the court noted that the work product doctrine did not apply, as the materials were not prepared at the direction of counsel. ([venable.com](https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2026/02/ai-privilege-and-the-heppner-ruling-what-the-court?utm_source=openai))
Conversely, in Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., the Eastern District of Michigan considered a pro se plaintiff’s use of an AI tool in preparing for litigation. The court concluded that the materials generated were protected under the work product doctrine, highlighting that the plaintiff’s use of the AI tool was in anticipation of litigation and intended to assist in legal strategy. This ruling suggests that the context and purpose of AI-generated materials play a crucial role in determining their protection under existing legal doctrines. ([kirkland.com](https://www.kirkland.com/publications/kirkland-alert/2026/03/two-federal-courts-chart-diverging-paths-on-the-discoverability-of-llm-interactions?utm_source=openai))
These contrasting decisions highlight the need for clear guidelines on the use of AI tools in legal contexts. Legal professionals should exercise caution when integrating AI into their workflows, ensuring that such use aligns with established privilege and confidentiality principles. As the judiciary continues to confront these issues, it is imperative for practitioners to stay informed and adapt to the evolving intersection of technology and law.