US Court Rules AI Chatbot Conversations Lack Attorney-Client Privilege in Legal Defense Case
Bradley Feiner, chairman of the public company GWG Holdings, faced a federal investigation for allegedly embezzling over $150 million from company funds. Instead of relying solely on his lawyers, Feiner consulted Claude, an AI model by Anthropic, to analyze evidence and help formulate legal defense strategies. He input information from his attorneys into Claude and received detailed documents outlining possible legal and factual arguments, which he shared with his legal team. However, when the FBI seized his computers, they discovered 31 chat documents with Claude, which prosecutors sought to use as evidence. Feiner claimed these communications were protected by attorney-client privilege.
The case reached Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, who ruled in February 2026 that no such privilege applies. Rakoff reasoned that Claude is not a lawyer, thus attorney-client privilege does not apply. Additionally, users agree to Anthropic’s privacy policy, which allows the company to collect, use, and disclose chat data, including to law enforcement. Therefore, Feiner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversations with Claude. The judge also noted Feiner did not consult Claude under his lawyers’ direction, and Claude itself stated it cannot provide legal advice.
Feiner was convicted on all charges in May 2026. Judge Rakoff acknowledged that if an AI tool like Claude were used under explicit attorney supervision, it might be treated differently, similar to interpreters or accountants working for lawyers. But when a client independently consults an AI chatbot, the communications are not protected and may be disclosed in court.
The article’s author, Israeli attorney Dr. Zvi Gabay, predicts Israeli courts would likely rule similarly, as attorney-client privilege traditionally covers human relationships between licensed lawyers and clients, not AI chatbots. He warns the public against relying on AI as a substitute for professional legal, medical, or psychological advice, emphasizing that only licensed professionals can provide protected counsel. Until laws evolve, those needing legal advice should consult qualified lawyers who responsibly use AI tools, akin to requiring a license and experience to drive a car safely.
