The Expert Record logo — a ruled transcript pageThe Expert RecordThe standard for expert witnesses using AI

AI in the Courtroom · AI-generated and altered evidence

United States v. Heppner

A criminal defendant used Claude, on his own initiative, to analyze his legal exposure and outline defense strategy, and later shared the results with his lawyers. The FBI seized the documents. The court ruled they were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Primary document readPrivilege and work product claims rejected February 17, 2026

By · Published · How this site is researched

What happened

Bradley Heppner, a financial services executive, was indicted in the Southern District of New York in October 2025 on securities fraud, wire fraud and related charges arising from his roles at GWG Holdings and affiliated companies. Before the indictment, after he had received a grand jury subpoena and knew he was a target of the investigation, he used Claude, the publicly available AI assistant made by Anthropic, to work through his situation. According to the court, he entered information he had learned from his lawyers and produced reports that outlined his anticipated charges and possible defense strategy.

FBI agents seized about 31 documents memorializing those exchanges when they arrested him and searched his home in November 2025. Mr. Heppner had shared their contents with his defense counsel, and counsel asserted privilege over them. Counsel also conceded that they had not directed him to use the system. The government moved for a ruling that the documents were not protected.

What the court did

Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted the government's motion from the bench on February 10, 2026, and explained the ruling in a written memorandum filed February 17, 2026. On attorney-client privilege, the memorandum states: "Because Claude is not an attorney, that alone disposes of Heppner's claim of privilege." The court also found that he had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality in the exchanges, pointing to the provider's written privacy policy, which describes collecting user inputs and outputs and reserves the right to disclose data to third parties, including government authorities. Sharing the documents with counsel afterward did not make them privileged.

On work product, the court found that the documents were not prepared by or at the direction of counsel, and that the fact that they later influenced counsel's strategy did not mean they reflected it. The memorandum noted that the analysis might be different if counsel had directed the use.

Where it stands

The case went to trial before Judge Rakoff. On May 7, 2026, a jury convicted Mr. Heppner on all 4 counts: securities fraud, wire fraud, making false statements, and conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud. Reporting at the time said sentencing was scheduled for October 7, 2026. No appellate ruling on the privilege question was located for this entry.

The obligation it engaged

Mr. Heppner was a defendant, not an expert, but the ruling reaches anyone who puts sensitive material into a consumer AI system and assumes the exchange stays private. It illustrates Clause 6, custody and confidentiality. The Standard asks the expert to establish, before submitting anything, what leaves the expert's environment and who retains it. Here the court looked to the provider's own terms to decide whether confidentiality could be expected at all.

It also bears on Clause 7, contemporaneous record, and Clause 8, disclosure. A record of AI use exists whether or not its author organizes it, and it may be obtained by someone else. An expert who assumes that a session is producible, keeps it within the engagement's agreed accounts, and records its purpose is in a better position than one who learns what the platform retained when an opponent asks for it. Whether expert work done at counsel's direction on a business-tier account would be treated differently is a question this ruling did not decide.

Sources

What could not be confirmed

Only the sentence beginning "Because Claude is not an attorney" is quoted from the memorandum; the court's other reasoning is paraphrased because the renderings available differed slightly in wording. The October 7, 2026 sentencing date comes from May 2026 reporting and was not confirmed on the docket. No appeal of the privilege ruling was located as of September 11, 2026.

About this entry

This entry was checked against the primary document listed in the sources. The entry for United States v. Heppner records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 11, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under the AI evidence matters. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].

Arrow pointing upTop