Courts issued two seemingly conflicting rulings on whether AI generated materials are protected. Heppner (S.D.N.Y.) found that documents created with a consumer version of Claude AI were not privileged or work product because the tool exposed data to a third party provider. Warner (E.D. Mich.) reached the opposite result the same day on different facts,
Client Use of AI as an Organizing/Focusing Tool Blows Up Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges
Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, an update/supplemental information on a couple of prior cases that we have discussed previously. First, EEOC v. William Beaumont Hospital, which we discussed here, resulted in a consent decree. The hospital has to pay the plaintiff $30,000 in noneconomic and compensatory damages. Also, within…
AI and Legal Privilege: Key Takeaways from US v. Heppner
On February 10, 2026, federal district court Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled from the bench in the Southern District of New York that the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine did not protect legal strategy materials that a criminal defendant generated using a generative AI tool, when he used a public version of the…
Global Legal Post – Intapp strikes deals with Anthropic and Harvey
By Ali Robinson
Global Legal Post covered how Intapp is now working with leading AI providers Anthropic and Harvey. In the article, Don Coleman, Intapp COO, is quoted saying:
The speed of the market is exactly why checks, rules and ethical safeguards in highly regulated industries like legal matter so much. A big part of what we seek…
Bloomberg – Measuring AI’s impact on Big Law
By Ali Robinson
Intapp Legal Industry Principal, Laura Saklad, shared her thoughts on AI adoption in Big Law for a Q&A in the Bloomberg Law weekly Legal Ops & Tech newsletter.
Bloomberg Law: Legal Ops & Tech – March 2, 2026
Measuring AI’s impact on Big Law
The First Sanctions for AI Misuse in Court Are a Warning of What Comes Next
By Cezary Bicki
Artificial intelligence is entering litigation faster than courts can formally regulate it. Judges are not responding with panic. They are responding with discipline.
The first sanctions issued for AI misuse in legal filings reveal how courts are approaching this new reality. The issue is not the technology itself. The issue is responsibility.
Courts are drawing…
The Justice Matchmaker: Kristen Sonday
By Tom Martin
Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋 I’m excited to share with you the 60th episode of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one!If you want to understand how technology is transforming the pro…
Who’s Working for Whom?
We pay AI tools to do the hard work, like the synthesis, the heavy lifting, and the cognitive labor we do not have time for. What we often get instead is a tool that produces a decent first draft and then hands the real work back to us.Not just the hard work. The administrative work,…
Save It For Later
By David Whelan
Reading Time: 5 minutes
I have been thinking a lot about the resilience of this website. Over time, I have stopped linking to live copies of resources because they disappear. I have been blogging for over 20 years and there are still people looking at posts I did early on where every resource I linked…
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
Over the past ten days, Canada has witnessed one of the fastest-moving technology policy debates in recent memory. What began as reporting about a tragic act of violence – the shootings in Tumbler Ridge, BC – quickly evolved into questions about AI safety, corporate responsibility, police reporting obligations, and now potential AI regulation.
This week’s…