Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

First-of-Its-Kind Federal Ruling Finds Use of Consumer AI Tool May Destroy Attorney-Client Privilege

Client Alert
February 17, 2026

On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued what appears to be one of the first rulings of its kind addressing whether materials created using a consumer AI platform can be protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In an oral ruling from the bench, Judge Rakoff held that documents generated by a criminal defendant using a commercial AI tool and later shared with counsel were not privileged, signaling that courts may treat consumer AI platforms as third parties for the purposes of determining the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.

The ruling sends a clear message that entering sensitive legal information into publicly available AI tools may jeopardize privilege protections, suggesting that even when AI-generated information is ultimately sent to an attorney a court may find that confidentiality of the information was waived because it was first shared with a third-party AI platform. As a result, even material that was explicitly created with the intent to assist counsel could still become discoverable in litigation, regulatory proceedings, or investigations if an AI platform was used to generate the material.

Judge Rakoff’s decision also emphasizes that the work product doctrine, which protects legal preparation and strategy developed in anticipation of litigation, may not apply when AI-generated materials are created independently by a client rather than at the direction of counsel. In this context, if an individual uses AI tools on their own initiative to analyze potential defenses or legal theories, that information may be treated as personal research rather than protected legal preparation under the work product doctrine.

The significance of this decision also lies in its treatment of consumer AI tools as potential third-party disclosures. The court relied in part on the terms and disclaimers of the AI platform that was used, which stated that user inputs were not confidential, reinforcing the view that submitting privileged information into an AI platform may undermine claims of attorney-client privilege or work product protection. The court did not directly address the use of commercial “enterprise” AI platforms, which typically operate under agreements restricting access to user data to ensure confidentiality. However, the reasoning suggests that future privilege determinations may turn on whether an AI platform functioned as (or was intended to function as) a confidential extension of counsel’s work product or as an outside third party that received voluntary disclosures from a client or other related party.

This first-of-its-kind ruling represents an early judicial signal that the convenience of generative AI carries meaningful legal risk. Until clearer judicial standards develop, the safest approach is to treat consumer AI tools as external third parties for confidentiality purposes and to always involve legal counsel before using them in connection with any legal matter, dispute, or investigation.

If you have questions about how this ruling may impact your organization’s use of AI tools, please contact BMD Attorney Jeff Joseph at jajoseph@bmdllc.com.

AIArtificial Intelligence
Client Alert

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

February 11, 2025Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.Client Alert

Immigration Orders and Their Economic Impact on Small Business: Insights from Attorney and Former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff

January 30, 2025President Trump's recent executive orders, targeting immigration policies, could significantly impact small businesses in Ohio, particularly those owned by undocumented immigrants. With stricter visa vetting, halted refugee admissions, and potential deportations, these businesses face uncertainty, workforce disruption, and closures. Ohio's immigrant-owned businesses, especially in food services and transportation, contribute billions to the state economy, and any disruption could result in economic ripple effects.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court

January 24, 2025The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), lifting an injunction previously imposed by the Fifth Circuit. However, a separate nationwide injunction remains in effect, meaning businesses are still not required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. FinCEN continues to accept voluntary reporting while enforcement remains paused.Client Alert

Lead Paint Contamination and Resources for Ohio Landlords

January 20, 2025Children are exposed to lead-based paint, which was used in most homes until it was banned in the US in 1978 and “can severely damage the brain and central nervous system causing coma, convulsions and even death.” Property owners and landlords should educate themselves on regulations and resources to mitigate their own liability.Client Alert

Will Student-Athlete Collectives Survive NIL Changes?

January 20, 2025By July 2025 the landscape of student-athlete funding will look nothing like the current landscape, so preparing now is a must. If you are a student-athlete, the parent of a student-athlete, a university/college, or “booster”, it behooves you to understand these evolving issues.
Older posts
Newer posts