Tech aficionados know “Claude” as a generative artificial intelligence (AI) platform operated by a private company. Former CEO Bradley Heppner was indicted for criminal fraud. He turned to, you guessed it, “Claude” for legal advice and counsel. Question: Were his discussions with “Claude” protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, or could the government obtain them?
Thank Goodness, No Privilege!
Talk about being replaced by AI! The court declared Claude not to be a lawyer, so Heppner’s discussions with Claude must be disclosed. Why?
First, Claude is a program, not a human being, and it takes “a trusting human relationship . . . with a licensed professional who owes a fiduciary duty and is subject to discipline” to create the attorney-client privilege.
Second, the privilege requires that the dialogue be made in confidence and maintained in confidence. But here, there was the third-party company (Anthropic) that maintained Claude. The agreement Heppner signed to use Claude required that he first consent to Anthropic using his “inputs” and Claude’s “outputs” to train Claude. As the saying goes, two’s company, three’s a crowd.
Third, Heppner might have won had a flesh-and-blood lawyer directed him to consult Claude with certain questions. Then, per the court, “Claude might arguably be said to have functioned [as a lawyer’s agent] in a manner akin to a highly trained professional” like a junior lawyer or a paralegal.
The ruling: Turn over the inputs and the outputs. United States of America v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2026).
Bottom Line
Here’s the court:
Generative artificial intelligence presents a new frontier in the ongoing dialogue between technology and the law. Time will tell whether, as in the case of other technological advances, generative artificial intelligence will fulfill its promise to revolutionize the way we process information.
For now, do the following:
- When you receive a pre-suit demand communication, shoot back a note reminding the lawyer of the duty to preserve evidence, including inputs/outputs from the use of generative AI by the potential plaintiff.
- If a lawsuit is filed, asked for the same information in written discovery. Inquire about it in a deposition.
- Finally, know this isn’t a fruitless search. As I write this, a guilty verdict was just returned against the defendant in a murder trial in Utah. She was accused of poisoning her husband. Key evidence: AI inputs/outputs on using fentanyl to take a life. “There’s gold in them thar hills!”
Michael P. Maslanka is a professor at the UNT-Dallas College of Law. You can reach him at michael.maslanka@untdallas.edu.