Rakoff t. On Feb. Feb 24, 2026 · Judge Rakoff denied the privilege claims asserted by Bradley Heppner, who had used Anthropic’s Claude generative artificial intelligence (AI) platform to devise a legal defense plan in anticipation of litigation after being indicted by a grand jury in November 2025 on charges including fraud, conspiracy, and falsifying corporate records. No Attorney-Client Relationship with Feb 24, 2026 · U. 1. 5 days ago · Key points: Judge Jed Rakoff (SDNY) ruled that documents generated via the AI platform Claude are protected by neither attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine — a first-of-its-kind decision nationwide Three independent grounds doomed the privilege claim: AI is not an attorney, communications with public AI platforms are not confidential under their privacy policies, and the 4 days ago · Judge Rakoff’s decision in Heppner makes clear that an AI tool—no matter how sophisticated—is not an attorney. Jed S. His most noteworthy decisions have been in the areas of securities law and criminal law. [5] The court held that the Gen AI documents failed this test. Rakoff just ruled that the conversations the defendant had. Communications with AI platforms do not satisfy the elements of attorney‑client privilege when they are not made at counsel’s direction. Feb 18, 2026 · It wasn’t. Rakoff has served since March 1996 as a U. 6 days ago · On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York ruled from the bench that documents a criminal defendant created using an AI tool were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine when those documents were later shared with defense counsel. Feb 23, 2026 · The Court’s Ruling Judge Rakoff framed the question presented as follows: “ [W]hen a user [of generative AI] communicates with a publicly available AI platform in connection with a pending criminal investigation, are the AI user’s communications protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine?” Feb 23, 2026 · Heppner, Judge Rakoff held that a defendant’s conversations with a publicly available, non-enterprise, generative AI platform, that were not made at the request of counsel, are not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. 2 days ago · Expert Opinion Mind Your Inputs & Outputs in Litigation or Risk Waiver of Privilege–A Cautionary Tale on Use of Generative AI Tools Judge Rakoff ruled that AI-generated information is not Feb 23, 2026 · Judge Rakoff applied the settled three-part test for privilege: the communication must be (1) between privileged parties, (2) intended to be and actually kept confidential, and (3) made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. Fully discoverable. district judge for the Southern District of New York. Aguinda v. Heppner, No. Feb 23, 2026 · Judge Rakoff applied the settled three-part test for privilege: the communication must be (1) between privileged parties, (2) intended to be and actually kept confidential, and (3) made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. New York, NY 10007-1312 Deputy Phone: (212) 805-0129 Jed S. D. Y. District Judge Jed Rakoff agreed. The court held that approximately 31 documents that the defendant, Bradley Heppner, generated using a public AI tool (Claude) and then shared with his attorneys were not protected by ChatGPT isn’t your lawyer and what you tell it might be something the judge and jury sees. ), that the 31 documents a criminal defendant created using a consumer AI tool and then sent to his lawyers were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. S. Not shielded by the work product doctrine. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York ruled that every one of those documents is fair game for federal prosecutors. Heppner, which he memorialized by order on February 17, 2026. Feb 23, 2026 · The Court’s Ruling Judge Rakoff framed the question presented as follows: “ [W]hen a user [of generative AI] communicates with a publicly available AI platform in connection with a pending criminal investigation, are the AI user’s communications protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine?” Feb 24, 2026 · U. 25-cr-00503 (S. He frequently sits by designation on the 2nd and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals. This is the first decision that addresses whether a client’s “AI chats” are privileged. N. Bradley Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. District Judge Hon. On February 10, Judge Rakoff ruled in United States v. 5 days ago · On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a significant bench ruling in US v. Not protected by attorney-client privilege. In United States v. No Attorney-Client Relationship with 4 days ago · Judge Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that documents a criminal defendant generated using a publicly available AI tool were not privileged or protected work product. 17, Judge Jed S. Texaco Rakoff presided over a class-action lawsuit against Texaco, brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, by a class of Ecuadoreans, including several indigenous tribes, claiming that Texaco caused extensive destruction to the Oriente rainforest. imk dmm utw uff rjn roo alb sdc xeo hyu sqx alv arw vjb uxe