**TL;DR:** In *United States v. Heppner*, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the S.D.N.Y. ruled on February 10, 2026, that a criminal defendant's chats with the public version of Anthropic's Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. ~31 AI-generated reports outlining defense strategy were ruled discoverable.

**The three-prong privilege test, all failed:**

1. **The AI is not an attorney** — privilege attaches to communications with counsel
2. **The privacy policy disclaimed confidentiality** — public Claude's terms permit training and disclosure
3. **Independent client use lacked counsel's direction** — Heppner used Claude without his lawyer's instruction

**What it means in practice:**

- Public consumer AI tools cannot be treated as confidential channels for client communications
- Enterprise tiers with contractual confidentiality protections may fare better, but no court has held that enterprise AI is privileged either
- Companion case *Gilbarco* (E.D. Mich., same day) preserved work product for AI-assisted pro se filings — different reasoning, AI-as-tool framing

**Architectural takeaway:** until a court directly holds enterprise AI privileged, the safest postures are explicit counsel direction, contractually confidential tools, and — for any AI that touches privileged audio or text — keeping the data on the lawyer's own machine.

*Disclosure: Voibe is our product. The article is educational and applies regardless of which AI vendor a lawyer chooses.*

Full post: https://www.getvoibe.com/resources/ai-attorney-client-privilege-heppner-ruling

For lawyers here — what is your firm's policy on consumer AI for case work right now?

Federal judge: a defendant's chats with public Claude are NOT protected by attorney-client privilege (US v. Heppner, Feb 2026)