Opinion: Companies that want to deploy artificial intelligence for legal purposes must understand the risks that poses and ...

Judge Jed Rakoff’s recent opinion in United States v. Heppner has generated quite a bit of discussion among litigators for its conclusion, ...

Federal court judges in New York and Michigan have offered split rulings on whether AI prompts seeking information from AI ...

Opinion: For attorneys incorporating AI into their practice, the opinion in Heppner provides a roadmap for potentially protecting privilege, but one that requires intentional, measured construction.

AI chats are not authomatically protected. In U.S. v. Heppner, Claude conversations seized by the FBI were not attorney-client privileged or work product.

Both cases suggest that use of GenAI tools in litigation should be handled with care.

Heppner holds that consumer AI use can destroy privilege; Warner holds that AI-assisted drafting is protected work product. Both were decided in the same week. Both may be correct on their own facts.

The rise of AI use in deal processes, whether for analyzing term sheets, summarizing due diligence findings, or identifying mark-up issues, creates ...