header-logo header-logo

Prompting privilege?

244934

Can documents produced by AI systems be legally privileged? Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej consider the lessons to learn from recent cases

  • Two recent US decisions considered whether documents created using publicly available AI tools are protected by privilege—with contrasting outcomes.
  • A judgment in England & Wales has given an indication into how the courts here will approach confidentiality where documents are AI-created.
  • Factors relevant to potential future disputes about the intersection between AI and privilege, and steps organisations can take to mitigate the risk of waiving privilege in AI-generated documents.

On 10 February 2026, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that documents created by a defendant using a publicly available generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool pending a criminal investigation and sent to their lawyer were not covered by attorney-client privilege or work product privilege (United States v Heppner, No 25-cr-00503; the Heppner case).

On the same day, the US District Court for the Eastern District

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll