04/02/2026
Bradley Heppner was facing federal securities fraud charges. After learning he was the target of an investigation, he used the consumer version of Anthropic's Claude to generate 31 documents analyzing potential defense strategies. He wasn't directed by his lawyers to do so. He later shared the documents with his counsel and claimed privilege.
A federal judge rejected that claim on multiple grounds. Claude is not an attorney, so the communications didn't satisfy the basic elements of privilege. No lawyer directed or supervised the use, so the work product doctrine didn't apply. And the platform's terms of service permitted data collection and disclosure to third parties, so there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
The ruling didn't create new law. It applied longstanding privilege principles to a new behavior. And it drew a clear line between uncontrolled consumer AI use and supervised, secure workflows.
Our latest article breaks down what happened, what the ABA requires under Opinion 512, and what legal teams should evaluate before adopting any AI platform.
Read it here:
The Heppner ruling made one thing clear: which AI tools attorneys use, and how they use them, can directly determine privilege outcomes. Consumer tools and purpose-built platforms are not the same.