3 ms·
>> Executives and corporate boards generally expect conversations with their legal team about legal matters to have attorney-client privilege. They lose that pr
by sandworm101 5mo ago
>> Executives and corporate boards generally expect conversations with their legal team about legal matters to have attorney-client privilege. They lose that protection if they share the same information with outside parties — and it’s possible that an A.I. note taker could have the same effect.
Total oversimplification. The fact is the privilege is a rule totally in the hands of the court. Every time a new communications technology come up, someone shouts about privilege but the courts still accept it. (Telephones, cell phones, emails, IMs, zoom court, each have had their day in the A-C privilege debate and been accepted.) What matters is that the parties intended and expected communications to be privileged.
As an example. I had a crim law prof who had been a NYC public defender in the 70s/80s. She had regularly interviewed clients at Rikers Island. All interviews were listened to by guards and she said you could even pay to get a copy of the recording. But these interviews were still covered by attorney-client privilege. No court would allow such evidence, but that doesn't mean that the prison could not use it for jail safety. Why does this matter: Because the presence of a third party doesn't mean anything. This isn't magic. An eavesdropper does not nullify the spell. Whether something is or is not privileged depends on the rules followed in the local jurisdiction, and no jurisdiction has ever followed a simplistic "presence of a third part" rule.
Until someone demonstrates an example of an AI actually leaking privileged information, courts are going to chalk it up as just another electronic tool for recording communications.
- hugh-avherald 5mo agoIt sounds like the prison recordings were compulsory, which is a different kettle-of-fish. The key phrase "if they share" implies voluntary and deliberate action, and is not much of an oversimplification imo. > What matters is that the parties intended and expected communications to be privileged. I would contend that your summary, not theirs, is a oversimplification. Jurisdictions will obviously differ, but privilege does not attach merely because of the intent and beliefs of the lawyer and client.
- sandworm101 5mo agoWell, I try to avoid the R word. The actual legal term would be reasonable intention. Literal expressed intention. ie putting an A-C warning on every email, won't be enough on its own. IMHO we should just assume the R word before every verb in every legal discussion. That is how reality works. These are not spells. If I express that I intend something to be private, then announce it using a megaphone at a basketball game, my intention is no longer reasonable regardless of what magic words I have thrown into my communication. Act like an idiot and a court will treat you like an idiot.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- darthwalsh 5mo agoThanks for sharing that nuance. It seems one court weighed in that Claude chat wasn't accepted: > In February 2026, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a defendant who pasted information—including details conveyed by his lawyers—into a public, consumer-grade AI chatbot (specifically Anthropic's Claude) completely waived his attorney-client privilege. But maybe if you are using a transcription tool that happens to send your audio through the Anthropic APIs, the ruling would be different?