Are My AI Chats Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege in North Carolina?

Artificial intelligence is now a part of everyday life. Millions of people use generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini to research medical symptoms, get career advice, and, increasingly, explore legal questions. When someone is involved in a lawsuit or under investigation, it is tempting to turn to an AI platform for quick answers. That impulse is understandable, but it can seriously damage your case.

Attorney-client privilege exists to protect confidential communications between a client and their attorney. It allows you to speak freely with your lawyer without fear that those conversations will be handed over to the opposing side. When you take your legal questions to an AI tool instead of your attorney, you are almost certainly operating outside the protection of that privilege entirely.

Using AI to seek legal advice during active legal proceedings can hurt your case in several ways:

• Your inputs become accessible to third parties. Most public AI platforms collect and store your queries. Their privacy policies often permit data sharing with outside parties, including government agencies.
• The AI platform itself has no duty to you. Unlike your attorney, an AI tool does not owe you confidentiality, does not hold a license, and does not carry legal or ethical obligations to protect your interests.
• Sending AI-generated materials to your lawyer does not fix the problem. Courts have made clear that routing AI documents through an attorney after the fact does not retroactively create privilege.
• Your legal strategy can be exposed. If you type case details, potential defenses, or information you learned from counsel into a public AI tool, you may be handing that information to the other side.

The safest approach is straightforward: direct all questions, concerns, and case-related information to your lawyer directly. That communication is protected. A chat with an AI platform is not.

Can AI Interactions Be Used Against Me In a Court Case?

Yes. Under current law, your conversations with public AI tools are generally not protected, and they can be obtained and used against you in court.

When you communicate with an AI platform, you are disclosing information to a third party. Attorney-client privilege does not extend to third parties. The moment that information leaves the protected sphere of the attorney-client relationship and enters a commercial AI system, you have likely waived any claim of confidentiality over it.

This is not a theoretical risk. It happened in a real federal case, and the results were severe.

United States v. Heppner

In one of the most significant rulings to date on AI and legal privilege, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York addressed a question that no federal court had answered before: whether communications between a criminal defendant and a generative AI platform are protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

The answer was no.

Here is what happened. Bradley Heppner was indicted on charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and related offenses, including conspiracy and falsifying corporate records. After receiving a grand jury subpoena and learning he was a target of the investigation, Heppner generated documents on his own initiative by communicating with Anthropic’s generative AI platform, Claude. During the search of his home, federal agents seized electronic devices containing approximately thirty-one documents generated using Claude.

Heppner asserted privilege over the materials, arguing that he had input information he had learned from counsel, that he created the AI communications to speak with counsel and obtain legal advice, and that he had subsequently shared the AI communications with counsel for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Judge Rakoff ruled on February 10, 2026, that the documents generated through the public AI platform were not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and granted the government’s motion to access them.

The court found three reasons why privilege did not apply:

• No attorney-client relationship existed. Claude is not a lawyer, a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties, or someone subject to discipline. It is a third-party AI platform where no attorney-client relationship exists.
• There was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. The public version of Claude collected data on user inputs and outputs for training purposes and reserved the right to disclose that data to third parties, including governmental regulatory authorities.
• Heppner did not use Claude at counsel’s direction. The court noted that the outcome might have been different if Heppner had used the AI tool at his counsel’s direction, as many courts recognize a privileged relationship when a third party acts as an attorney’s agent.
• Sending the documents to his lawyer afterward did not help. The court rejected the notion that privilege could attach retroactively. Although Heppner eventually shared the AI-generated documents with his attorneys, this subsequent disclosure could not cure the earlier waiver. The privilege must exist at the time of the communication.

The result: the AI documents were turned over to the prosecution. What Heppner believed was private research became evidence for the government.

This case is a warning to anyone involved in legal proceedings who uses AI tools without guidance from defense counsel or a qualified attorney.

How Can I Protect Myself and My Case?

Whether you are pursuing a personal injury claim, defending yourself in a lawsuit, or navigating any other legal matter, the way you handle information matters. Here is what you should and should not do when it comes to AI use during active legal proceedings.

What You Should Do

Communicate directly with your attorney. Every question, concern, and piece of new information belongs in a conversation with your lawyer. That communication is protected by attorney-client privilege. Your attorney can also advise you on whether and how to use any technology tools related to your case.

Ask your lawyer before using AI for anything case-related. If you want to use an AI tool for legal research or to help organize your thoughts, ask first. Courts have suggested the outcome could differ if a client used an AI tool at counsel’s direction, potentially establishing the tool as functioning as the lawyer’s agent within the protection of the attorney-client privilege. The key is that your attorney must be involved.

Understand your AI platform’s privacy policy. If your attorney approves AI use in your case, make sure you know what happens to your data. Enterprise-grade platforms with strict privacy agreements are treated differently than public consumer tools.

Keep records of your attorney’s instructions. If your lawyer directs you to use a specific tool or take a specific step, document that direction. This establishes the attorney-client relationship in connection with that activity.

What You Should NOT Do

Do not type case details into a public AI tool. Any information you input into a third-party AI platform about your case, your defense strategy, or information you received from counsel may be discoverable. The Heppner ruling makes this clear.

Do not assume AI chats are private. Most public AI tools explicitly disclaim giving legal advice and retain the right to use and share your data. The word “private” does not apply to consumer AI conversations in the way it applies to conversations with your attorney.

Do not share AI-generated documents with your lawyer and assume they become protected. As the Heppner court confirmed, forwarding AI documents to your attorney after the fact does not make them privileged. The damage is already done at the point of disclosure to the AI platform.

Do not use AI to conduct legal research on your own case without guidance. Legal practitioners use AI tools in carefully controlled ways with professional safeguards in place. You do not have the same protections when using public AI tools as an individual.

Do not disable your attorney’s ability to manage your case. When you go to AI platforms independently for legal strategy, you may undermine the work your attorney is doing on your behalf, sometimes without even realizing it.

Taylor Serbin Injury Lawyers | Personal Injury Legal Representation for North Carolina

The rules around AI and legal privilege are still developing, and courts across the country will continue to weigh in. What is already clear is that using public AI tools in connection with your case carries real legal risk, and the consequences can be severe.

At Taylor Serbin Injury Lawyers, we provide the direct, experienced legal guidance North Carolina clients need to protect their rights and their cases from start to finish. When you work with our law firm, you have a dedicated attorney who will answer your questions, manage your legal strategy, and keep your communications protected under attorney-client privilege.

You should never have to figure out complex legal questions on your own, and you should never have to rely on an AI tool for answers that could change the outcome of your case. We are here to give you the legal counsel and representation you deserve.

If you have been injured or are facing legal proceedings in North Carolina, contact Taylor Serbin Injury Lawyers today. Your case is too important to leave to chance.