Does Asking ChatGPT A Legal Question Make It Discoverable? It Depends!

Above the Law

by Joe Patrice

February 24, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

Litigants using AI tools like ChatGPT to navigate legal matters face a confusing landscape, as recent court rulings highlight conflicting interpretations of whether such interactions are protected under attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. In *United States v. Heppner*, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that documents generated by the defendant using Anthropic’s Claude AI were not shielded from discovery due to the company’s privacy policy allowing data collection and sharing with third parties. This decision suggests that engaging with AI tools like ChatGPT may waive confidentiality, as these platforms often collect user data for training models or disclose information to authorities. In contrast, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti in *Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.* found that a self-represented litigant’s use of AI did not inherently make her legal work discoverable unless it was directly shared with an adversary. Patti distinguished between AI tools as non-person entities and human third parties, emphasizing that voluntary disclosure to an AI tool alone does not waive protections under the work product doctrine. The Heppner ruling raises concerns about the broader implications for cloud-based services, where users’ data is often collected by companies like Microsoft or Google, potentially eroding traditional privacy expectations. This creates a dilemma: if clients use AI tools integrated into everyday platforms (like CoPilot in Microsoft Office), does this render their communications presumptively discoverable? The conflict between Rakoff’s strict interpretation of confidentiality waivers and Patti’s more nuanced approach underscores the uncertainty surrounding AI’s role in legal practice. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in legal workflows, these cases signal a need for clearer guidelines. The issue is particularly pressing for self-represented litigants and attorneys alike, who must navigate evolving rules while balancing privacy expectations with technological realities. While Rakoff’s decision aligns with the letter of the law, critics argue it undermines traditional protections meant to safeguard attorney-client confidentiality in a cloud-based world. Ultimately, these rulings highlight the urgent need

Verticals

legalnews

Originally published on Above the Law on 2/24/2026