Now in its sixth year, Seyfarth’s Commercial Litigation Outlook provides a clear view into the forces reshaping business disputes in 2026. This year’s analysis highlights a risk landscape defined by accelerating technological change, an increasingly fragmented regulatory environment, and growing economic pressures across multiple industries.
According to the Outlook, artificial intelligence is creating new categories
When Judge Jed Rakoff ruled in United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026) that documents a criminal defendant created through exchanges with Anthropic’s Claude platform weren’t protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, the decision generated significant attention across the legal community. Many practitioners read that ruling as a sweeping statement:
Seyfarth Shaw is proud to sponsor the 2025 Masters Conference, a premier boutique legal event hosted in cities across the U.S., as well as in Toronto and London. The conference will be held on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at Seyfarth’s Chicago office and will feature keynote presentations, panel discussions, workshops, and networking opportunities.
Topics will include
On Wednesday, March 20, Seyfarth attorneys Rebecca Woods, Owen Wolfe, Lauren Leipold, and Puya Partow-Navid will present and Ken Wilton will moderate, the first session of the 2024 Commercial Litigation Outlook webinar series: Charting the Course: AI’s Influence on Legal Practice and IP Protection.
Time of the event:1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Seyfarth Synopsis: Federal judges are requiring attorneys to attest as to whether they have used generative artificial intelligence (AI) in court filings, and if so, how and in what manner it was used. These court orders come just days after two New York attorneys filed a motion in which ChatGPT provided citations to non-existent caselaw
You may have recently seen press reports about lawyers who filed and submitted papers to the federal district court for the Southern District of New York that included citations to cases and decisions that, as it turned out, were wholly made up; they did not exist. The lawyers in that case used the generative artificial