Introduction
The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed how people access information, including legal advice. Millions around the globe are turning to AI chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude for guidance on matters ranging from employment conflicts to criminal defense. While these tools offer a conversational and user-friendly interface, they create a misleading impression of confidentiality. A pivotal 2026 ruling by the United States District Court has clarified that discussions with AI chatbots do not enjoy attorney-client privilege.
Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States: The Heppner Case
In the case of United States v. Heppner (2026), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed this issue in a criminal case involving securities fraud and wire fraud. The court determined that exchanges between Bradley Heppner, the former CEO of GWG Holdings, Inc., and Anthropic’s AI platform Claude, were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.
The court’s ruling was based on three key points: Claude is not an attorney, there is no confidentiality due to Anthropic’s privacy policy allowing data collection and sharing, and there is a risk of compelling defense attorneys to testify if their advice was relayed to Claude. The court emphasized that AI’s novelty does not exempt it from established legal principles.
Attorney-Client Privilege in India
In India, attorney-client privilege is grounded in Sections 132 to 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which mirrors the common law principles previously laid out in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 132 of the BSA prohibits advocates from disclosing communications made during professional employment without the client’s consent. This protection extends to communications through third parties and applies to all legal advisors, not just enrolled advocates.
Furthermore, Section 134 of the BSA ensures that individuals cannot be compelled to disclose confidential communications with their legal advisor unless they choose to testify. Similar protections exist under Section 227 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Order XI and Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which exclude privileged materials from discovery in legal proceedings.
Indian Legal Analysis of AI Chatbots and Privilege
In India, privilege cannot arise between users and AI chatbots, as AI platforms are neither enrolled advocates nor recognized legal advisors. As highlighted in Kalikumar Pal v. Rajkumar Pal (1931), privilege requires a formal attorney-client relationship, which AI chatbots cannot establish.
Confidentiality is also lacking, as AI platforms process data on corporate servers, often in different jurisdictions, and their terms allow data sharing. This absence of confidentiality means communications do not meet the requirements of a “confidential communication,” as noted in Memon Hajee Haroon Mohamed v. Abdul Karim (1878).
AI chatbots, classified as intermediaries under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, must preserve user data and may be compelled to disclose it to law enforcement or courts, further undermining any claim to privilege.
More Read
Implications and Recommendations
Communications with AI chatbots cannot claim legal privilege and using such platforms for legal strategy could waive existing privileges. Corporations should be wary, as AI-facilitated interactions regarding legal strategies are not protected, exposing them to potential disclosure during investigations or legal proceedings.
To mitigate risks, users should anonymize sensitive data before inputting it into AI platforms and refrain from uploading privileged materials. AI transcription services should not be used for legal consultations, as they offer no privilege protection.
Conclusion
AI chatbots are not substitutes for privileged legal consultations. Legal professionals and users should exercise caution and follow best practices to protect sensitive information when engaging with AI tools.
About the author: Prabudh Singh is a Senior Associate at AP & Partners.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Bar & Bench.
