A federal court just answered a question that millions of AI users probably never thought to ask: Can the things you tell your AI be used against you in court?
The answer, at least for now, is yes.
What Happened in the Heppner Case
In United States v. Heppner, decided February 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued what may be the first ruling of its kind in the country.
See the Court’s Memorandum for yourself, here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138.27.0.pdf
Here is a summary:
Bradley Heppner was a corporate executive facing serious federal criminal charges, including securities fraud and wire fraud. During the period when he knew he was under investigation and had already hired a lawyer, he had 31 written exchanges with a generative AI platform. When federal agents executed a search warrant at his home, those AI conversations were among the items seized. Heppner’s legal team argued that the conversations were off-limits — protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The court disagreed on both counts. The judge ruled that conversations with an AI platform do not qualify for attorney-client privilege because an AI is not a lawyer, and no attorney-client relationship exists between a user and an AI. The court also found the communications could not be considered confidential, in part because the platform’s own privacy policy disclosed that user inputs could be shared with third parties, including government regulators. Finally, the work product doctrine did not apply because the documents were not prepared by, or at the direction of, his attorney. Heppner had used the AI entirely on his own initiative.
Why This Matters to You
You probably are not facing federal fraud charges. But the lesson from Heppner reaches far beyond the criminal courtroom.
Every day, people use AI to think out loud — about their businesses, their contracts, their disputes, their strategies, and sometimes their mistakes. If you are using an AI platform to explore a legal problem, process a difficult business situation, or draft communications related to a dispute, you should understand one thing clearly: those conversations are likely discoverable in litigation. That means an opposing party, a government agency, or a court could potentially obtain and review what you typed.
The instinct to use AI as a sounding board is understandable. These tools are powerful and often feel private. They are not. As Heppner illustrates, AI platforms retain data, their privacy policies permit broad sharing, and courts are unlikely to extend traditional legal protections to AI conversations simply because a user later shared the output with an attorney.
Practice Tip: Courts may view the situation differently if your attorney directs you to use an AI tool as part of your legal representation. If your attorney does that then be sure that communication is documented. But that is a narrow situation, and the law here is genuinely unsettled. When in doubt, pick up the phone and call your lawyer instead of typing into an AI.
The Law on AI Is Still Being Written
The judge in Heppner acknowledged that this appears to be a question of first impression — meaning no court had decided it quite this way before. He also noted plainly that “AI’s novelty does not mean that its use is not subject to longstanding legal principles.”
That framing matters. Courts are beginning to apply existing rules to AI in ways that will shape how businesses and individuals interact with these tools for years to come. The law is moving quickly, and not always in the direction users might hope.
This is precisely why further analysis of your specific situation is so important. How you use AI, in what context, and in connection with what legal matters can all affect whether and how your conversations might be exposed. This is not a one-size-fits-all answer.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court ruled in U.S. v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. 2026) that AI conversations are not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
- AI platforms are third parties. Sharing information with them is not the same as sharing it with your lawyer.
- AI privacy policies typically allow platforms to retain and share your data, undermining any expectation of confidentiality.
- If you are dealing with a legal matter, a dispute, or a potential investigation, be cautious about what you disclose to any AI tool.
- The law governing AI is actively developing. Here is a very appropriate and timely disclaimer based on that- this information should not be taken as legal advice for several reasons, including that the law is constantly changing. As a result, what we suggest based on the Heppner case today may not be appropriate tomorrow, or for your particular situation.
Talk to an Attorney Before the Problem Gets Bigger
At BMBR, we stay current on the legal developments that affect our clients’ businesses. This includes the fast-moving world of AI and the law. If you have questions about what protections apply to your communications, or how to navigate a legal matter without inadvertently creating a paper trail that works against you, we are here to help.
FAQ
Q: Are my AI conversations protected by attorney-client privilege?
A: Generally, no. A federal court ruled in U.S. v. Heppner (2026) that conversations with an AI platform are not protected by attorney-client privilege because AI is not a lawyer and no attorney-client relationship exists.
Q: Can my AI conversations be used as evidence against me?
A: Potentially yes. Courts can subpoena AI platform records, and those communications may be discoverable in civil or criminal litigation.
Q: Does sharing AI output with my lawyer protect it?
A: Not necessarily. The Heppner court held that non-privileged communications do not become privileged simply by being later shared with an attorney.
Q: Is the law on AI and confidentiality settled?
A: No. Heppner itself was described by the court as a question of first impression nationwide. The law is actively developing.
Q: What should I do if I am dealing with a legal matter and use AI regularly?
A: Consult an attorney before relying on AI to process sensitive legal information. Your attorney can advise on how to manage communications in a way that preserves applicable protections.