AI tools have become part of everyday business – but can using them inadvertently destroy legal privilege, exposing confidential communications between a lawyer and client (or inhouse counsel and the business)?
This webinar dives into the latest court decisions on the subsistence or loss of privilege when using AI tools across USA, UK, Singapore, amongst others. We begin with the case of United States v Heppner (which was the first to start the ball rolling), where a defendant’s chats with Claude detailing his defence strategy were seized by the prosecution, which successfully argued that the AI-generated documents were not protected by privilege. Would the outcome be the same in Singapore?
We’ll explore the facts of recent overseas decisions and how our courts might approach these issues, in light of our own principles governing legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. More importantly, we’ll translate these developments into practical guidance for organisations using AI in their day-to-day operations.
Some scenarios we will cover are:
- Your company is under investigation and your employees start chatting with AI tools to test potential responses
- Your employees want a summary of legal advice received from external counsel so they upload the advice into an AI tool
- Are “public AI tools” really as bad as made out to be?
- What are some essential terms in the contracts/Terms of Service you should have with your AI provider to preserve privilege?
If you would like to explore courses from our Academy on Data Protection, Cyber Regulation & AI Governance, please click here.
For courses on Privacy Engineering, Cybersecurity & AI Technology, please click here.