Is My AI Legal Conversation Private?

Millions of people now turn to AI chatbots like Claude or ChatGPT before they ever call a lawyer. A federal ruling out of New York should change how you think about those conversations — because the answer to "is it private?" is almost certainly no.

Why It Matters

If you've ever typed a legal question into an AI chatbot — described a dispute, asked whether you have "a case," or pasted in something an attorney told you so the AI could help you organize your thoughts — you may have assumed that conversation was between you and the machine. It isn't. In February 2026, a federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant's conversations with Anthropic's Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege and could be used against him. That ruling has major implications for anyone using AI to think through a legal problem, in Illinois and nationwide.

The Big Picture: The Heppner Ruling

In United States v. Heppner, the defendant was under federal indictment for securities and wire fraud. While the case against him was pending, he used the consumer version of Claude to synthesize information about his defense — including things he had learned from his own attorneys — and later shared the AI-generated documents with his legal team. When the government seized his devices and found roughly thirty-one of these AI chat documents, Heppner's counsel argued they were protected as privileged attorney work.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff disagreed, on three separate grounds:

• An AI chatbot is not an attorney. Privilege requires a trusting relationship with a licensed professional who owes the client fiduciary duties. Claude doesn't — and, notably, Claude itself told the government it wasn't a lawyer and couldn't give legal advice.

• The conversations weren't confidential. Consumer AI platforms disclose in their privacy policies that they collect chat data, may use it to train models, and can share it with third parties, including government regulators. That alone defeats any reasonable expectation of privacy.

• The chats weren't created to obtain legal advice. Heppner used the tool on his own initiative, not at his attorneys' direction — so simply forwarding the output to his lawyers afterward didn't retroactively make it privileged.

The court also rejected a work-product argument for similar reasons, and — perhaps most alarming for practitioners and clients alike — found that by feeding information he'd learned from his own lawyers into Claude, Heppner may have waived privilege over those original attorney conversations, too.

What You Need to Know

This isn't just a criminal law problem — the same reasoning applies in civil litigation, employment disputes, divorce and family law matters, business disputes, and regulatory investigations. A few practical takeaways:

• Anything you type into a consumer AI chatbot about your legal situation can potentially be obtained by an opposing party or the government through discovery — just like an email or a text message.

• Sharing information your attorney gave you with an AI tool can jeopardize the privilege over your original conversation with your attorney, not just the AI chat itself.

• "Talking it through" with an AI chatbot feels private and conversational, but legally it is closer to keeping a diary you've handed to a third-party company — one whose terms of service typically allow that data to be reviewed, retained, or disclosed.

• This applies to AI notetakers and assistants embedded in video calls, email, and productivity software, too — not just chatbots you deliberately open.

• The court left open the possibility that AI use directed and controlled by your attorney — as part of the legal team's own workflow — could be treated differently. That's a decision for your lawyer to make deliberately, not something to assume on your own.

Talk to CTM Legal Group

If you're facing a legal issue — criminal, civil, employment, or family-related — the safest first step is a conversation with a licensed attorney, not a chatbot. Anything you've already discussed with AI about your matter is worth mentioning to your lawyer early, so they can evaluate what may or may not be protected. Our attorneys can help you understand what's actually privileged in your situation and how to protect it going forward.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with CTM Legal Group. For guidance specific to your situation, please contact our office directly.

Adapted from William M. Tasch, "What Happens When Your Client 'Asks Claude': United States v. Heppner and the AI Privilege Problem," originally published in The Bottom Line (May 2026) and the ISBA Rural Practice Section Newsletter (June 2026).