AI-Generated Documents Are Not Privileged US District Court Finds

On February 10, 2026, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) in United States v. Heppner, granted the US government’s motion for a ruling that documents generated by the defendant, Bradley Heppner, through an artificial intelligence tool were not protected by either attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. The Court followed up with a written memorandum on February 17, 2026 to further explain its decision.

In October 2025, Heppner was charged with several financial crimes relating to securities fraud and wire fraud. When Heppner became aware that he was the target of a government investigation, he generated 31 documents (the Documents) containing communications with Claude, the generative AI tool operated by Anthropic. The Documents, prepared without counsel’s instruction, outlined a potential defense strategy, legal arguments, and summaries of the law in preparation for a potential indictment. Heppner shared the Documents with his counsel, who asserted privilege over them.

The Court held that the Documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege and reiterated that attorney-client privilege attaches only to communications:

1. between a client and their attorney,
2. that are intended to be and were kept confidential, and
3. made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.

The Court held that Claude is not an attorney, so the Documents did not represent communications between a client and attorney. The Court also held that Heppner had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his communications with Claude because Claude’s privacy policy states that it trains on users’ “inputs”, Claude’s “outputs” and may disclose user data to third parties. Lastly, the Court held that Heppner did not communicate with Claude for the purpose of obtaining legal advice because he did not communicate with Claude at the suggestion or direction of counsel.

The Court also held that the work product doctrine did not apply to the Documents. The Work Product Doctrine functions to protect “materials prepared by or at the behest of counsel in anticipation of litigation or for trial”. This doctrine did not apply to the Documents because even if they were prepared in anticipation of litigation, the Documents were nevertheless not prepared by or at the behest of counsel, nor did they reflect counsel’s defense strategy.

Summary By: Amy Ariganello