alt Hacker NewsHere's my question: If the attorney-client privilege, and more importantly, the work product doctrine don't apply here, would they also not apply to direct conversations between an attorney and an AI?
It seems to me that the court would need to apply some twisted logic to claim that those protections apply to an attorney, but not to a petitioner or respondent.
Replies
The ruling explicitly overrules Shih, thus making exactly that argument:
> Shih, of course, is not binding on this Court, and this Court respectfully disagrees with its holding. As relevant here, the court in Shih principally concluded that the work product doctrine is not limited to materials prepared by or at the direction of an attorney. Id. But that conclusion undermines the policy animating the work product doctrine, which, as one of the cases cited in Shih explains, is "to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and develop legal theories and strategy 'with an eye toward litigation.'"
1. "Conversation" is purely anthropomorphism. It's software input and output. If the client makes an excel spreadsheet about the cost benefit of ripping off people, it's not work-product.
But the lawyer's draft damages analysis in excel has always been protected.
2. If we're going to buy the "conversation" conceit, lawyers talking to consulting experts have always had a lot more work product protection than testifying experts.
The lawyer talking to Claude feels like talking to a consulting expert, especially since Claude can't have independent knowledge of facts that would allow it to testify.