Courts issued two seemingly conflicting rulings on whether AI generated materials are protected. Heppner (S.D.N.Y.) found that documents created with a consumer version of Claude AI were not privileged or work product because the tool exposed data to a third party provider. Warner (E.D. Mich.) reached the opposite result the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
SDNY Addresses Privilege and Work Product Implications of Using Unsecured Public AI Tools
A recent decision in United States v. Heppner appears to be the first federal ruling to directly address attorney‑client privilege and work‑product issues arising from a non‑lawyer’s use of a consumer-grade insecure AI tool for legal research. The court held that materials generated through Anthropic’s consumer version of Claude were…
The (Third) Party’s Over? Recent Decisions Cast Doubt on the Continued Vitality of Third Party Releases in Chapter 11 Reorganizations
By Julia Alonzo & Elliot R. Stevens on
Two recent decisions by U.S. District Courts have rejected attempts to include nonconsensual third party releases in chapter 11 reorganization plans. These rulings suggest third party releases may be facing increasing push back from the courts.
Traditionally, bankruptcy only operates to eliminate claims held by creditors against the debtor. Over the last few years, however, corporate debtors have increasingly attempted to include nonconsensual third party releases in chapter 11 plans of reorganization. These third party releases, when approved by the bankruptcy court, operate to preclude creditors of the debtor from pursuing claims they possess against non-debtor third parties. Despite being increasingly found in chapter 11 restructurings, however, third party releases have remained controversial and the subject of heated debates, both inside and outside the courtroom.