联邦法院最近的裁决突显了消费者使用人工智能的特权风险

US – March 2026 A recent decision from the US District Court forthe Southern District of New York highlights therisk for companies and individuals using consumer Narrow Decision, but Broad Implications The court carefully limited its ruling to the facts before it. It didnot address whether enterprise grade AI tools with strongerconfidentiality and data protection controls should be treateddifferently, nor whether AI research conducted at the direction ofcounsel could qualify for work product protection. Even so,Heppner 2026), the court held that materials created by a nonlawyer criminaldefendant using a public, nonenterprise version of an AI tool were notprotected by the attorney‑client privilege, or the work product doctrine. Practical Takeaways for Businesses and Legal The ruling is among the first to squarely address how traditionalprivilege principles apply to a client’s independent use of generative AI, The decision offers several practical lessons. Consumer AI tools arenot confidential by default and prompts and outputs may be treatedas communications shared with a third‑party. Sharing AI‑generatedmaterials with counsel after the fact does not create privilegeretroactively. Work product protection likewise requires attorneydirection; client only AI use, even for legal research, will not qualify. Tool Factual Background ofUnited States v. Federal prosecutors charged Bradley Heppner with various criminaloffenses arising from his alleged role in a scheme that defraudedinvestors of more than US$150 million. During a search of his home,FBI agents seized several documents reflecting Heppner’s exchangeswith a consumer AI platform. Without any suggestion from counselthat he do so, Heppner used an AI tool to prepare reports on potential Legal departments should educate employees that inputtingsensitive, proprietary or legally privileged information into consumerAI tools may waive privilege or create discoverable evidence. Where Key Holding: No Privilege for Independent Bottom Line The attorney‑client privilege protects communications between anattorney and client that were intended to be confidential and made forthe purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court’s analysis rested onthis settled doctrine, not on any AI specific rule. First, the court heldthat there was no attorney‑client privilege because the AI chatbot“is not an attorney,” and “that alone disposes of Heppner’s claim ofprivilege.” Second, even if that were not dispositive, the interactions Heppnerreinforces that generative AI does not change thefundamentals of privilege law. What matters is who used the tool,for what purpose and under what confidentiality protections. AsAI becomes further embedded in business workflows, careful Should you have any questions or require specific advice, pleasereach out to your usual contact at the firm. Contact Steven DelchinSenior Attorney, ClevelandT +1 216 479 8278E steven.delchin@squirepb.com No Work Product Protection Either Distinct from the attorney‑client privilege, the work product doctrineprotects material prepared by, or at the direction of counsel inanticipation of litigation. The court held there was no work productprotection for Heppner’s AI‑generated materials because they werenot prepared by counsel, or at counsel’s direction and did not reflect