Article

The Rules of Privilege Still Apply When Lawyers use AI

Harvey (its Chief Legal Officer) · harvey.ai

Explains privilege and work product in plain terms and cites United States v. Heppner, where a defendant's chats with public Claude were held not privileged.

Open on harvey.ai ↗

It answers 2 questions

  1. Where is AI legal help dangerous, what still needs a human lawyer?
  2. Is it safe to paste confidential contracts into ChatGPT?

Read with it

  1. The privilege gap explained: your AI chats are discoverable, your lawyer conversations are not. artificiallawyer.com Article ChatGPT Has No Legal Privilege: Is This A Problem? Artificial Lawyer
  2. A 3x general counsel draws the exact line between AI-safe questions and lawyer-required ones. gc.ai Article AI Legal Advice: What It Does and Where Liability Sits GC AI (Cecilia Ziniti)
  3. The bar association's plain-language taxonomy of the three ways AI fabricates law. nysba.org Article Beyond the Mirage: Beware of Generative AI and Hallucinations New York State Bar Association
  4. Stanford Law faculty on who is liable when AI gets the law wrong, you or the model. law.stanford.edu Podcast AI, Liability, and Hallucinations in a Changing Tech and Law Environment Stanford Legal podcast
  5. Why general LLMs lack the citation, context, and privilege protections professional legal work demands. tlpodcast.com Podcast Beyond ChatGPT: Why In-House Counsel Need Purpose Built AI (Cecilia Ziniti) Technically Legal podcast
  6. The definitive peer-reviewed study: even Westlaw and Lexis AI hallucinate, general chatbots far worse. hai.stanford.edu Article AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries Stanford HAI / RegLab
eChai Partner Brands The partnership →