[HN Gopher] Be careful: chatting with AI about your case is disc...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Be careful: chatting with AI about your case is discoverable
        
       Author : rogerallen
       Score  : 9 points
       Date   : 2026-03-28 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (harvardlawreview.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (harvardlawreview.org)
        
       | rogerallen wrote:
       | In United States v. Heppner, Judge Rakoff of the Southern
       | District of New York ruled that written exchanges between a
       | criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not
       | protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product
       | doctrine.
        
       | pseingatl wrote:
       | That's one judge. An audio tape made by a criminal defendant is
       | intended for review by his counsel is a non-discoverable
       | privileged communication. The tape retains this character if
       | reviewed by an attorney-authorized paralegal. What difference
       | exists where the attorney has the tape summarized by AI. I
       | respectfully submit that Hizzoner is incorrect.
       | 
       | We might also ask if the best venue to decide national AI
       | regulation is a single judge sitting in a criminal case involving
       | a fraudster. If Judge Rakoff is correct, then a trade secret
       | shared with AI is no longer a trade secret. This affects not just
       | a single NY criminal defendant, but anyone that runs a company
       | and wants to keep business practices secret. I would submit that
       | this is no way to regulate a field such as AI.
        
         | pavel_lishin wrote:
         | > _What difference exists where the attorney has the tape
         | summarized by AI._
         | 
         | But that's not what happened here.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-03-28 23:01 UTC)