Everyone likes Artificial Intelligence. A person can access deep information within just a couple minutes. But, in doing so, the person may sacrifice certain rights. In U.S. v. Heppner, 2026 WL 436479 (S.D. N.Y. Feb.17, 2026), Bradley Heppner was charged with securities fraud in Dallas. Like many persons, he then consulted with a lawyer and with Claude, an AI platform. Heppner did this on his own. His lawyer had no involvement in researching issues via Claude. In response to discovery, Heppner and his lawyer asserted the attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege regarding that research. The prosecutor moved to compel and the court sided with the government. It is safe to assume that if the defendant tried to avoid providing the material, then it would have caused him some harm. So, we assume something in Heppner’s research would harm his case.

Mr. Heppner had inputted information to Claude that he gained from his lawyer. He then created AI documents which he planned to share with his lawyer. And, he did then share those AI documents with his lawyer.

Attorney-Client Privilege

Regarding the attorney-client privilege, the court dispensed with that argument quickly. Heppner was acting on his own volition, not at the direction of his lawyer. While Mr. Heppner might have inputted legal advice from his lawyer, that alone did not make his research via Claude privileged. The court noted that it was comparable to Heppner telling a friend or co-worker what his lawyer had told him. Such a communication is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Too, providing information to a third party, even if just an internet website, generally waives the attorney-client privilege. A person cannot seriously claim that by providing information to the internet that they wanted that information kept private.

Work-Product Privilege

The court was more troubled by the argument that happier communicated with Claude, so as to better prepare to consult with his attorney. But, Heppner did this on his own. He was not directed by his attorney to consult with Claude. He was not conducting legal research for his lawyer. So, the question is whether Heppner sought legal advice from Claude, not whether he shared outputs from Claude with his lawyer.

The work-product privilege was more complicated. Some courts recognize that a layperson can prepare for possible litigation. Therefore, materials used during that process might be included within the work product privilege. But, again here, happier acted on his own volition, not at the request of his lawyer. The Judge recognized that non-lawyers can indeed anticipate litigation. But, the materials they use in that process will not “protect a lawyer’s mental processes.

Heppner involved a criminal case. A civil lawsuit might produce a different result. One court has recognized that Fed.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 26(b)(3) protects the work product of a party, not just counsel. Morgan v. V2X, No. 25-CV-01991 (D.C. Solo. March 30, 2026). For my part, I still counsel clients to avid AI. Inputs to AI might be harmless, but they could also reveal information best left safeguarded.

See the decision in U.S. v. Heppner here.