All Things Investigations: Episode 37 – Privileges in Document Production with Mike Huneke
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 395: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Special Privileges
Why Your Data is Key to Reducing Risk and Increasing Efficiency During Investigations and Litigation
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 210: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Special Privileges
What Lawyers Need to Know About Cybersecurity | Dennis Van Metre | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
A recent federal court ruling has delivered a significant wake-up call to anyone who has used an artificial intelligence (AI) platform to research legal issues, understand their rights, or prepare for a conversation with an...more
As generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude become more common in litigation strategy and internal analysis, courts are beginning to confront a pressing question: Does using AI waive attorney-client privilege or...more
In The Serendipity Centre Limited v Susan Tinson [2026] EWHC 349 (Ch), the High Court held that a company could not withhold legal advice from a former director who had already lawfully seen its contents. The information was...more
On 17 February 2026 in U.S. v. Heppner, 1:25-cr-503 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2026), Judge Rakoff held that a defendant’s written exchanges with a public generative AI platform were not protected by the attorney-client privilege or...more
The French Parliament has adopted landmark legislation establishing, for the first time, specific confidential status for legal opinions prepared by in‑house lawyers (juristes d’entreprise). This marks a significant shift in...more
Two recent US cases have considered whether communications involving AI tools are protected by attorney–client privilege or the work product doctrine. While these decisions arise under US law, the principles – particularly in...more
On November 4, 2025, federal agents arrested Bradley Heppner and seized thirty-one AIgenerated documents created for the express purpose of obtaining legal advice. See United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-503 (JSR), 2026 WL...more
The Massachusetts Superior Court recently issued a notable discovery ruling that serves as an important reminder for litigants who consider naming a former attorney as an expert witness. In Cummings v. Deloitte, the court...more
Generative AI tools have quietly moved from novelty to fixture in how lawyers and their clients research, write, and prepare for litigation. Two US federal courts just issued the first rulings of their kind addressing the...more
Two recent decisions from U.S. federal courts have produced strikingly different outcomes on whether materials generated using AI tools are protected by privilege or work-product doctrine. Both cases involved individuals or...more
Clients can lose privilege protection through explicit waiver (caused by disclosure), implied waiver (usually caused by reliance on undisclosed privileged communication to gain some litigation advantage), or as a sanction for...more
On February 17, 2026, the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a written decision with potentially far reaching implications for whether documents created using...more
Courts issued two seemingly conflicting rulings on whether AI generated materials are protected. Heppner (S.D.N.Y.) found that documents created with a consumer version of Claude AI were not privileged or work product because...more
Depending on which court you ask, your latest prompt to an artificial intelligence (“AI”) chatbot is either a protected private thought or a voluntary disclosure to someone other than your lawyer....more
You’re in luck – we have eDiscovery case law! In our March 2026 monthly webinar of cases covered by the eDiscovery Today blog, we will discuss disputes related to waiver of attorney-client privilege on communications,...more
In an opinion addressing an issue of first impression, a federal judge ruled last week in United States v. Heppner that information a user input into a generative AI platform pertaining to an anticipated criminal case against...more
So Troutman Amin, LLP famously earned a very high sanction in a case that did NOT involve fake AI briefing (ha.) Well Humana earned a strikingly high sanctions award against a TCPA plaintiff– and I must say it appears to have...more
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently signaled an important warning for both corporate and individual litigants (be it potential or actual), intent on using generative artificial intelligence...more
A federal court ruled that communications by a non-attorney with a public AI tool about legal strategy are not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine....more
The common interest doctrine can sometimes protect communications among separately represented clients who share an identical legal interest in litigation or anticipated litigation. But that doctrine is not a separate legal...more
In a February 17, 2026 ruling in U.S. v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (S.D.N.Y.), the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and a publicly available...more
Key Point: In a question of first impression, a federal judge’s ruling that documents a client’s prompts to a generative AI system—and documents generated by AI to share with counsel—are not protected by the attorney-client...more
It is an increasingly common reality facing clients, counsel, and courts alike: to what extent are user prompts and AI-generated outputs discoverable in civil litigation or criminal proceedings? More and more, the familiar...more
Artificial Intelligence chatbots are ubiquitous at this point. Millions of Americans use these tools daily in both their professional and personal lives. They’re great tools for quickly compiling information, gaining insight...more
Companies are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence ("AI") platforms to obtain legal information. In the intellectual property context, common uses include freedom-to-operate searches, claims drafting, and...more