Artificial intelligence is changing the way people research, draft, and solve problems — including legal ones. AI can
be a valuable tool for both lawyers and clients, but when confidential legal information is involved, it pays to
proceed carefully.
Be Careful What You Tell AI
Typing a question into ChatGPT, Claude, or another AI tool may feel like asking a lawyer privately. It isn’t
necessarily the same thing.
A client in a contract dispute might upload the contract and ask AI to interpret a clause. A divorce client might paste
text messages with a spouse into a chatbot. A business owner might describe a dispute with a former employee and
ask AI to spot potential claims.
Each of these creates a digital record of the exchange — and, as recent cases show, that record may or may not be
protected from disclosure.
The cases so far are mixed.
In United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), a criminal defendant used Claude to help build defense
strategies and shared the output with his attorneys. The court held that the AI output must be turned over to the other
party because neither attorney-client privilege nor work-product protection applied: the AI conversations weren’t
communications with an attorney, weren’t confidential enough for privilege, and reflected the defendant’s own work
rather than work directed by counsel.
In Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2026), however, a pro se plaintiff used ChatGPT in her litigation.
The court denied the defendants’ request to discover her AI use, finding it protected by the work-product doctrine.
The court noted that generative AI tools are “tools, not persons,” and that using one to draft doesn’t waive that
protection.
Takeaway: there’s no blanket rule that AI conversations are always discoverable — or always protected. Courts are
still applying ordinary privilege, work-product, and relevance principles to this new context.
The safest approach: don’t put anything into an AI system that you’d be uncomfortable handing to the opposing
party. Asking “What is the difference between mediation and litigation?” is very different from uploading court
filings, describing privileged conversations with your attorney, naming witnesses, or detailing settlement strategy.
What This Means Under Utah Law
Utah’s discovery rules (Utah R. Civ. P. 26) already cover electronically stored information, allowing discovery of
relevant, nonprivileged material that’s proportional to the case. AI conversations are simply a new form of that same
category — so whether a given prompt or output must be produced depends on the usual factors: relevance,
privilege, work product, and proportionality.
The law here will keep developing. Until it is fully developed, treat AI the way you’d treat any other technology that
creates a record.
Millar Legal’s Approach to AI
Utah lawyers aren’t barred from using AI — in fact, Utah’s Rules of Professional Conduct treat staying current on
technology as part of competent representation. Rule 1.1’s comment specifically ties competence to understanding
the benefits and risks of relevant technology.
Millar Legal takes that seriously and takes client confidentiality just as seriously (Utah R. Prof’l Conduct 1.6(a)).
When we use AI for drafting or research, we use only enterprise-grade tools built for data security, and every output
is reviewed by an attorney for accuracy before it’s used.
Bottom Line
An AI chatbot is not your lawyer. A conversation with one may not carry the same legal protections as a
conversation with your attorney — so think before you click “send.”
**We help people protect and enforce their rights in divorce, custody, paternity, enforcement, and modification proceedings. Please let me know if we can help someone you know.