AI-Generated Documents Deemed Not Privileged
In a recent ruling, a Texas financial services executive accused of a $150 million fraud faced a significant setback when a judge ruled that documents prepared using an artificial intelligence service and shared with his attorneys could not claim privilege.
Case Background
The case, involving the executive known as Heppner, centered on 31 documents related to his legal situation, generated by an unnamed AI tool after he learned he was a target of law enforcement. The judge’s ruling has raised important questions about the scope of attorney-client privilege when AI tools are involved.
Key Arguments in Court
The government challenged Heppner’s claims of privilege, with Judge Rakoff stating, “I’m not seeing remotely any basis for any claim of attorney-client privilege.” The defense argued that the documents contained information conveyed by the law firm, but the prosecution countered this.
Prosecutor Alexandra Rothman emphasized that the documents did not reflect the legal strategy of Heppner’s defense team. Judge Rakoff agreed, concluding the AI-generated documents were not prepared by attorneys.
AI Tool’s Privacy Concerns
Additionally, the judge noted that the AI tool’s terms indicated that information entered was not confidential, undermining any expectation of privacy.
Potential Trial Implications
While the judge rejected the privilege claims, he cautioned that using the AI-generated information at trial could create a witness-advocate conflict, complicating the case further.
Government’s Position
The government’s motion highlighted that the documents failed to meet the criteria for attorney-client privilege because:
- They were not communications between a client and an attorney.
- They were not created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
- They were not confidential, as the defendant shared his queries with the AI tool.
The prosecution asserted that Heppner’s use of the AI tool was similar to seeking advice from friends since AI lacks professional duties owed to clients or courts.
Legal Precedents and Considerations
The ruling indicates that pre-existing, non-privileged materials cannot gain privilege simply by sharing them with an attorney, and that the work product doctrine does not protect materials created independently by a layperson.
In conclusion, the Heppner case sets an important precedent regarding the use of AI tools in legal contexts, raising key questions about the protection of communications and the impact of technology on legal strategies.
