Edonkulous1d ago
Jason Lefkowitz

"Does a defendant who used an AI translator retain attorney-client privilege?

Not according to a recent decision from a judge in the Southern District of New York. On Feb. 17, Judge Jed Rakoff issued a written opinion in United States v. Heppner. This first-of-its-kind ruling found that documents created by a criminal defendant using Claude are not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine."

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-and-privilege-after-united-states-v.-heppner

AI and Privilege After United States v. Heppner

A recent flawed ruling on privilege threatens the access to legal services that AI tools can provide.

Default
Mar 30 at 5:12pmWeb
Show threadwhy not wy2d ago
@jalefkowit yep, this is what i told my doctor too when he asked to use chat gpt in our session. is chat gpt bound by HIPA? NO, right? So, yeah, no.
Show threadJared White (ResistanceNet ✊)1d ago

@jalefkowit Wow, I sure don't agree with their reasoning as to why the judge overstepped. GenAI should *not* be treated the same as any other software to date, because it's *far *more invasive and far less able to preserve any sense of privacy.

Honestly, general-purpose cloud service providers also have a lot of 'splainin' to do. I don't trust much of anything out there with regard to the legal front.

Show threadben1d ago

@jaredwhite @jalefkowit I think the concern there might be that the judge didn’t seem to rule on the basis that GenAI SaaS is different from other SaaS. The judgment doesn’t seem to distinguish, so it seems to contradict existing case law (which might leave it open to appeal, I guess?).

The judge could (and should, perhaps) have said that the existing law on SaaS shouldn’t apply for [reasons], but didn’t seem to do so.