Linked – Attorney-Client Privilege Has a Problem: AI Isn’t a Lawyer

I work in the legal field, but I’m not a lawyer, so I cannot say how big a problem this could be.

But I think there is a significant question here:

AI tools are revolutionizing legal work. They can draft contracts, analyze case law, and provide near-instant answers to complex questions. But while the technology is smart – and impressively so, there’s one thing its not: a lawyer. And that matters. Because in the eyes of the law, AI doesn’t qualify for attorney-client privilege

I’m working on a future M365 newsletter about the risks of people using Copilot without realizing that it’s saving their prompts and AI interactions in the back end of M365. The risk has a lot to do with those prompts being discoverable. For a lawyer, those prompts may fall under the definition of privileged work product (Again, I’m not a lawyer, but that makes sense to me. Your opinion may vary.). Still, for others, there’s no lawyer involved in their interactions with an AI tool.

If I ask AI to do legal research or provide legal insights, should I assume that the data would be privileged? As the article points out, why would I believe that if no lawyers were involved?

Then again, if I ask AI for legal insights and act based on that advice without getting advice from actual lawyers, am I representing a fool for a client?

https://thelegalwire.ai/attorney-client-privilege-has-a-problem-ai-isnt-a-lawyer/

Follow these topics: Artificial Intelligence, LawFirms