Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryant | Hacker News Reader

Citation for #1 - https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2026/03/united-states-v-he...

> Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York — addressing “a question of first impression nationwide” — ruled that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, but safe to say, don't rely on or put your legal defense etc. (or elements of it) into AI unless you want it discovered.

(not a lawyer, unlike OP, who might be able to refine what I highlighted with more precision)

View on HN

> Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, but safe to say, don't rely on or put your legal defense etc. (or elements of it) into AI unless you want it discovered.

"You are an expert defense counsel with experience in Murder 1. Do not hallucinate. Let's say tomorrow my spouse is found strangled..."

It's the query to Gemini in Incognito asking if a 8'x12' rug is a good way to move a body that's going to really make things difficult.

Surely they can't hold a simple hypothetical against me. Just because it _happened_ to come true.

nobody could have predicted it (except maybe prediction markets)

Don’t forget to give it the cheerful personality of Jamie Oliver afterwards to recommend you a death row meal that is nutritious and will make the experience more pleasant.

In the US, are Google queries about the law considered attorney-client privilege? What about library records? Browser history? Google Maps / Uber / car travel history (when traveling to an attorney's office)?

If somebody Googles "best attorney for murder NYC" a day after a murder is committed but before any case is filed against them (so they clearly had some reason to expect that case), could that be used as evidence?

I'm not sure if you were actually asking the question but regardless the answer is that all of those absolutely can and are regularly used as evidence

Parent comment was asking about attorney-client privilege which means there's an attorney in the communication loop. If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard. But this is an active area of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to AI. I expect some important cases will happen

Just because they have a lawyer does not mean things like their browser history and every other example in the comment I replied to would not be permitted as evidence...

Except for something like specifically looking up a lawyer

> If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard.

But the tool is not your attorney, so it can't be the originator of attorney-client privilege. The situation is no different than if you get informal legal advice from a friend: even if that friend is an attorney, the communication is unprivileged unless it's part of a formal representation.

What if a user puts an email from their attorney into chatgpt so they can ask questions about it to better understand it? Surely the email would still be covered but maybe the questions and answers wouldn't be?

Or what if your phone automatically generates a summary of your attorneys text message, would that be covered?

Generally seeking counsel for a crime you may end up being accused of isn't going to be admissible as evidence. The "if he's so innocent, why did he hire an attorney" isn't something that judges tend to allow to play out in a courtroom.

Hans Reisee rather infamously checked out a book from the library about how to kill someone and hide the evidence.

Google queries aren’t privileged. (An attorney’s Google queries are probably work product protected, though I’m not sure anyone has tried.) Your Uber travel history isn’t protected: the privilege applies only to communications.

Google queries are used to prosecute people all the time. It’s actually hilarious. Criminals regularly Google incriminating stuff about criming.

Good argument for using DeepSeek with an anonymous form of payment.

Discovery in China will be a tad more difficult…

I use it for medical question for this same reason

Just use https://tinfoil.sh

They solved all this stuff, I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.

I was in fact not aware of it until seeing your comment, this looks potentially perfect for a tool I’m making that involves financial data. I’m pretty on top of LLM news but I’ve never heard of this company, maybe they need more marketing?

Seems like a fair trade off if I would not be able to afford a lawyer. I'd take the "AI but not 100% confidential" any time compared with no help at all.

> exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine

Shouldn't that have been relatively clear to all parties involved? Maybe not to the defendant, who's apparently clueless.

The AI platform is not an attorney. A defendant's communications with an AI platform are therefore not communications between a client and their attorney, nor will the AI output constitute attorney "work product" because the AI platform is not an attorney.

Doesn't really come across as a novel problem, aside from AI being involved. I'm sure countless defendants have made the stupid mistake of talking about the facts of their case to persons other than their attorney, and those communications came back to bite them in the ass when discovered.

Can anyone be your lawyer, or does a lawyer have to be certified somehow?

It is my understanding that they must be certified. You are allowed to represent yourself, but it is my understanding that a non-lawyer cannot represent you.

Gonna be hilarious when someone sends a Boston dynamics robot loaded with an llm to take the bar exam.

You have to be admitted to the bar to practice law. Which is to say, other lawyers must recognize you as a lawyer, and this recognition can be taken away.

More practically, this means (in America) that you need a JD degree (4 year grad school), to pass an exam, and pass a(n oftrn horrifically thorough) character background check.

> pass a(n oftrn horrifically thorough) character background check.

Explains why so many let loose afterwards ;) jokes

Minor point, but law school is only 3 years long.

I think they are asking about privileged communication

There is a difference between “legal counsel” or “legal representative in court”, with the former being less restricted (“has a law degree” vs “attorney/has passed the bar exam”)

Because of that, I think you can practice law without being admitted to the bar. Chances are it varies by jurisdiction, though.

(And of course, this isn’t legal advice)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com