A federal judge in Manhattan ruled on February 17, 2026, that 31 documents a criminal defendant created using an AI chatbot are not protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The ruling in United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503 (S.D.N.Y.) is the first of its kind in the United States and carries direct consequences for anyone going through a divorce in New York who has typed case details into ChatGPT, Claude, or any other consumer AI tool.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that documents created with Anthropic's Claude AI are not privileged |
| When | Bench ruling February 10, 2026; written opinion February 17, 2026 (Document 27, 12 pages) |
| Case | United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y.) |
| Documents at issue | 31 AI-generated reports outlining defense strategy and legal arguments |
| Key legal finding | No reasonable expectation of confidentiality when using consumer AI tools |
| Impact | Any privileged information entered into a free AI chatbot may become discoverable in litigation |
Why This Ruling Changes the Privilege Landscape
Sharing confidential legal information with a consumer AI chatbot destroys attorney-client privilege under the same logic that applies to sharing with any other third party. That is the core holding of Judge Rakoff's 12-page opinion, and it rests on bedrock principles that New York courts have applied for decades.
The facts are straightforward. Bradley Heppner, a corporate executive charged with securities fraud, received a grand jury subpoena and hired defense counsel. He then independently used Claude to prepare reports analyzing his defense strategy and potential legal arguments, inputting materials he had received from his own lawyers. He later shared the AI-generated documents with his attorneys. When prosecutors sought access, Heppner's legal team argued the documents were privileged.
Judge Rakoff rejected that argument on three independent grounds. First, Claude is not a lawyer and was not engaged by counsel as an agent, so the communications fell outside the definition of attorney-client privilege entirely. Second, and most critically, the court found that Heppner "could have had no 'reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his communications' with Claude." Anthropic's privacy policy expressly reserves the right to disclose user data to "third parties," including "governmental regulatory authorities." The consumer version of Claude also uses inputs for model training, lacks enterprise-grade security features, and provides no contractual privacy guarantees.
Third, the court held that a client's independent consultation with a third-party information source does not become privileged merely because the resulting notes are later shared with a lawyer. This principle applies whether the source is a search engine, a library, or an AI chatbot.
The ruling aligns with ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024), which warned that using privileged information with unsecured AI tools could constitute disclosure to the third-party operator. More than 20 major law firms have since issued client alerts reaching the same conclusion: the court applied traditional, technology-neutral privilege principles to a new technology.
How New York Divorce Cases Are Affected
New York's attorney-client privilege is codified under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503, which protects confidential communications between attorney and client made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The privilege belongs to the client, but it can be waived by voluntary disclosure to a third party.
The Heppner framework means that a divorce client in New York who types financial details, custody strategy, or settlement positions into a consumer AI tool has potentially waived privilege over that information. In a contested divorce, the opposing spouse's attorney could argue that any AI-generated analysis of marital assets, hidden income, or parenting strategies is discoverable under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3101, which governs the scope of disclosure in civil proceedings.
Consider the practical scenarios. A spouse uses ChatGPT to analyze whether certain assets qualify as separate property under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B)(1)(d). Another uses Claude to draft a parenting plan or evaluate potential spousal maintenance calculations under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B)(6). A third uploads financial statements to an AI tool and asks it to identify discrepancies. Under the Heppner reasoning, none of these interactions carry a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when conducted through consumer-grade AI products.
The opinion does leave one important door open. Judge Rakoff noted that the analysis "could differ for enterprise AI tools" that do not train on user data, provide contractual privacy provisions, and include cybersecurity-grade protections. The court specifically observed that "had counsel directed Heppner to use Claude, Claude might arguably be said to have functioned in a manner akin to a highly trained professional who may act as a lawyer's agent within the protection of the attorney-client privilege."
This distinction matters. If your attorney provides you with access to a secured, enterprise AI platform and directs you to use it as part of case preparation, the privilege analysis may be entirely different. The consumer versus enterprise distinction is not academic; it is now the dividing line in privilege law.
Practical Takeaways for New York Divorce Clients
-
Stop entering case details into free AI tools immediately. Any information about your finances, custody goals, legal strategy, or settlement positions that you type into ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, or similar consumer platforms may be discoverable by your spouse's attorney. The Heppner court was unambiguous on this point.
-
Review what you have already shared. If you have used AI chatbots to research divorce topics using your actual case facts, inform your attorney now. Early disclosure allows your legal team to assess the damage and develop a strategy before opposing counsel raises the issue.
-
Ask your attorney about secure alternatives. Enterprise AI tools with contractual privacy protections, no-training policies, and attorney-directed use may preserve privilege under the Heppner framework. Your lawyer can advise whether their firm offers a secure option.
-
Understand the difference between general research and privileged strategy. Searching "how is property divided in New York" in an AI tool is no different from Googling it. But entering "my husband has $2.3 million in a brokerage account he has not disclosed" crosses the line into case-specific privileged territory.
-
Treat AI chatbots like a stranger in the room. The simplest mental model: if you would not say it in front of your spouse's lawyer, do not type it into a consumer AI chatbot. The court treated Claude as a third party, and that framing is unlikely to change.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling apply to all AI tools or just Claude?
The Heppner ruling applies to any consumer AI tool that lacks enterprise-grade privacy protections. Judge Rakoff's analysis focused on Anthropic's privacy policy permitting third-party data sharing, but ChatGPT, Gemini, and other free AI platforms have similar terms. The court's reasoning is technology-neutral and extends to any consumer AI service that reserves the right to use or disclose user inputs.
Can my spouse subpoena my AI chat history in a New York divorce?
Yes. Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3101(a), all non-privileged matter that is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action is discoverable. After Heppner, AI chatbot conversations about your case are likely not privileged. Your spouse's attorney could subpoena records from the AI provider or request that you produce your chat history as part of standard discovery.
What if my lawyer told me to use AI for research?
Attorney-directed AI use may preserve privilege, but only if the tool has enterprise-grade protections. Judge Rakoff specifically noted that if counsel had directed the AI use, the chatbot "might arguably" function as a lawyer's agent. However, this theory remains untested, and using a consumer tool like the free version of ChatGPT at your lawyer's suggestion likely still waives privilege because the privacy policy permits data sharing.
Is this ruling binding on New York state divorce courts?
The Heppner decision is a federal district court ruling and is not binding on New York state courts, where most divorces are litigated under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236. However, Judge Rakoff sits in the Southern District of New York, and his opinions carry significant persuasive authority. New York state courts frequently look to S.D.N.Y. decisions on privilege issues, and the reasoning applies established privilege principles that state courts already follow.
How do I protect information I have already shared with an AI chatbot?
You cannot retroactively restore privilege once it has been waived by disclosure to a third party. The most protective step is to delete your AI chat history (though the provider may retain data per its privacy policy), inform your attorney about what you shared, and cease entering case-specific information into consumer AI tools going forward. Your attorney can then assess whether a protective order or other procedural measure may limit the damage in your specific case.
New York residents navigating divorce can find their county's exclusive family law attorney through our directory for guidance on protecting privileged information during their case.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.