No, a chat with a consumer AI tool is generally not covered by attorney-client privilege, and a federal court said so in February 2026. A person who types the facts of a lawsuit into a chatbot may have created a record the other side can ask for. A law firm can publish a plain answer to this question, and answer engines tend to quote pages that give one.
This post sits next to Firm AEO's earlier work on situational prompts. That post covered how the engines answer questions asked mid-dispute. This one takes a single situational question, privilege, and covers what the court held, what a firm may say, and how to structure the page.
- In February 2026 Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York ordered Bradley Heppner to produce 31 Claude-generated documents, rejecting a privilege claim over his chats with the AI tool.
- Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report found more than half of consumers have used or would consider using AI to answer a legal question, so the privilege question is being asked at scale.
- Citorian's June 2026 five-engine test found situational prompts produced a named firm only 18% of the time, which makes an on-site answer one of the few ways a firm enters that conversation.
- A public page explaining that chatbot conversations are not privileged is general information, and the firm's ethics counsel decides the wording under ABA Model Rule 7.1.
Are AI chats about your lawsuit privileged?
Generally no. Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and a lawyer. A chatbot is not a lawyer, and a consumer service's terms usually let the provider keep and disclose conversations. Without a lawyer and without confidentiality, the usual basis for a privilege claim is missing.
OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman made a similar point on the Theo Von podcast, saying the industry had not yet worked out how privacy should apply to conversations with ChatGPT. Business Insider's August 2025 coverage quoted Curtis Mallet-Prevost partner Juan Perla saying that if a court wanted to access a chat, there was little to protect it. Whether a given chat is protected is a legal question for a licensed lawyer in the relevant court.
What did the court decide in United States v. Heppner?
Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York ruled in February 2026 that Bradley Heppner, a former GWG Holdings chair charged with fraud, had to hand over 31 documents generated with Claude. His lawyers argued the chats were privileged because he used them to prepare for meetings with counsel. The court rejected that.
Coverage by Bloomberg Law and Quartz reports two reasons. Claude is not a lawyer, so no attorney-client relationship existed between Heppner and the platform. And the provider's privacy policy allowed use and disclosure of chats, so the communications were not confidential. One federal trial court is not the law everywhere, and the ruling should be read in full by counsel.
Why does this question matter for AI visibility?
Because consumers are already asking engines legal questions before they hire anyone. Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report found more than half of consumers have used or would consider using AI to answer a legal question, and 28% of those who did were directed to contact a lawyer.
Privilege is a situational question, and situational questions rarely name a firm. Citorian's June 2026 test of five engines across 359 personal injury answers found a firm named in 18% of situational answers, against 94% for vetting and direct prompts. A firm that wants to appear in the 18% needs a page the engine can lift an answer from.
| Prompt type | Example | Share naming a firm |
|---|---|---|
| Vetting or direct | Is [firm name] a good lawyer? | 94% |
| Specific injury | Who handles rear-end collision claims in Phoenix? | 79% |
| Question-led | How long do I have to file a claim? | 23% |
| Situational | Can my ChatGPT chats about my case be used against me? | 18% |
What can a law firm say on its website about AI chats and privilege?
A firm can publish general information: consumer chatbot conversations are generally not privileged, may be discoverable, and a prospective client should talk to a lawyer before typing case facts into any tool. The page should avoid advice on a reader's own matter, outcome promises, and claims that the firm is the best choice.
The same ABA Model Rule 7.1 standard applies as to any other firm communication, and state bars add their own rules on disclaimers and labelling. Firm AEO is a marketing company, not a law firm, so the practical step is to draft the page and let the firm's ethics counsel approve it before it goes live.
How should the page be structured so engines can quote it?
Use the question as the heading, answer it in the first sentence in 40 to 60 words, and name the jurisdiction and the lawyer who reviewed it. Name the entity in each sentence instead of writing it or they, so a lifted sentence still makes sense out of context.
- Heading: the question as a consumer would type it.
- Opening answer: no, generally not privileged, with the Heppner ruling named and dated.
- Jurisdiction line: the state or province the page applies to.
- Not-advice line: general information, not legal advice for any one matter.
- Reviewer line: the named lawyer and the date of last review.
- Three to five FAQs, rendered as FAQPage schema.
Can the other side in a lawsuit ask for my ChatGPT history?
It can be requested in discovery like other records, and the Heppner order shows a court compelling production of AI chat documents. Whether a particular request succeeds depends on the court and the facts, so a licensed lawyer should answer it.
Does the answer change if I use a paid or enterprise AI tool?
Bloomberg Law's commentary on Heppner notes the reasoning may reach some enterprise tools that let nonlawyers ask legal questions. Terms on retention and disclosure differ by provider, so the safest assumption is to ask a lawyer before relying on any tool's settings.
Is this different in Canada?
Canadian privilege rules are provincial and federal in different ways, and a Canadian law firm should publish its own page. TR Law has published a Canada-specific answer to the same question.
- 1.Bloomberg Law, Heppner shows attorney-client privilege's fragility in the AI era
- 2.Quartz, AI chatbot attorney-client privilege ruling in Heppner
- 3.Business Insider via Yahoo, Can you trust AI to keep your secrets? (August 2025)
- 4.Clio, 2025 Legal Trends Report press release (October 2025)
- 5.Citorian, which personal injury lawyers AI recommends (June 2026)
- 6.TR Law, Are AI chats about your lawsuit privileged? (Canada)
- 7.ABA Model Rule 7.1, Communications concerning a lawyer's services