{"id":1245,"date":"2026-03-04T14:43:22","date_gmt":"2026-03-04T18:43:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/?p=1245"},"modified":"2026-03-04T14:43:23","modified_gmt":"2026-03-04T18:43:23","slug":"first-impression-attorney-client-privilege-and-ai-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2026\/03\/04\/first-impression-attorney-client-privilege-and-ai-use\/","title":{"rendered":"First Impression:  Attorney-Client Privilege and AI Use"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>By <a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/courtneylbaird.html\">Courtney L. Baird<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/ryancrawford.html\">Ryan S. Crawford<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In an issue of first impression, a federal court held that information a defendant input to a consumer generative AI system on his own initiative is <em>not<\/em> protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. That holding extended to documents the defendant generated using AI and later shared with counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/perils_privilege_waivers_through_ai_0326.html\">Read the <em>Alert<\/em> on the Duane Morris LLP website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Courtney L. Baird and Ryan S. Crawford In an issue of first impression, a federal court held that information a defendant input to a consumer generative AI system on his own initiative is not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. That holding extended to documents the defendant generated using AI &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2026\/03\/04\/first-impression-attorney-client-privilege-and-ai-use\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;First Impression:  Attorney-Client Privilege and AI Use&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1052,5,1054],"tags":[548,1281],"ppma_author":[878],"class_list":["post-1245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ai","category-infotechtelecom","category-litigation","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-attorney-client-privilege"],"authors":[{"term_id":878,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1245"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}