{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-09-30T04:42:02.573Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"criminal-case","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-sdny-heppner-claude-defense-strategy-documents-ruled-not-privileged","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"[Page 1] 'At a pretrial conference in this matter held on February 10, 2026, the Court, after hearing the arguments of counsel, granted from the bench the Government's motion for a ruling that certain written exchanges that defendant Bradley Heppner had with a generative artificial intelligence (\"AI\") platform were not protected from Government inspection by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"[Page 12] 'Because Heppner's use of Claude fails to satisfy either of these rules, the AI Documents do not merit the protections Heppner has claimed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'But the judge said that protections for conversations between clients and their attorneys did not apply: Claude is not a lawyer, and the executive's attorneys did not ask him to talk to the chatbot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 10 February 2026 the court granted from the bench the Government's motion for a ruling that Heppner's written exchanges with a generative AI platform were not protected from Government inspection by either attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine; a memorandum of reasons followed on 17 February 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own memorandum."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"[Page 3] 'In connection with Heppner's arrest on November 4, 2025, agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at Heppner's home and seized numerous documents and electronic devices.'; 'Heppner's counsel later represented to the Government that among the seized materials were approximately thirty-one documents that memorialize communications that Heppner had with the generative AI platform \"Claude,\" which is operated by the private company Anthropic.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A criminal suspect consulted the Claude artificial intelligence tool, opening 31 separate chats and entering sensitive details about his case, including information he had received from his attorneys. The FBI later raided his home and seized printouts of the conversations.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"FBI agents seized about thirty-one documents memorialising Heppner's communications with Claude when they executed a search warrant at his home in connection with his arrest in November 2025 (the memorandum gives 4 November on page 3 and the day after the 4 November unsealing on page 2).","causal_attribution":"Court record of counsel's representation; not a claim about AI behaviour."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"[Page 3] 'Without any suggestion from counsel that he do so, Heppner \"prepared reports that outlined defense strategy, that outlined what he might argue with respect to the facts and the law that we anticipated that the government might be charging.\"'; [Page 4] 'Heppner's counsel conceded, however, that counsel \"did not direct [Heppner] to run Claude searches.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to his counsel, Heppner used Claude in 2025, after receiving a grand jury subpoena, to prepare reports outlining defence strategy, without any suggestion from counsel.","causal_attribution":"The memorandum records counsel's own statements."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"[Page 5] 'Because Claude is not an attorney, see ECF No. 23-6, that alone disposes of Heppner's claim of privilege.'; [Page 6] 'Second, the communications memorialized in the AI Documents were not confidential.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that the documents were not privileged because Claude is not an attorney and the exchanges were not confidential.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's reasoning."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In May, Heppner was convicted of securities fraud and wire fraud, among other charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Heppner was convicted in May 2026 of securities fraud and wire fraud, among other charges.","causal_attribution":"No inspected source attributes the conviction to the Claude documents or says they were used at trial."}],"effects":[{"label":"the defendant's self-prepared defence-strategy documents, written with Claude, were ruled open to Government inspection","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.652137/gov.uscourts.nysd.652137.27.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Scanned PDF without a text layer; the 12 page images were read on 2026-09-29 and the passages relied on were transcribed manually (bodies/law-heppner-memo27-transcribed.txt).","independence_group":"sdny-memo"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/confided-chatgpt-secrets-ended-court-090000568.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Washington Post, 27 August 2026, read in full via its Yahoo News syndication on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ruling derives from the court record; the conviction report is its own.","independence_group":"washington-post"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/artc-courtroom-hallucinations-lawyers-cite-precedents-dreamt-up-by-ai-as-clients-sabotage-their-own-cases","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read via a Wayback capture (2026-09-10) on 2026-09-29; the live page is a JavaScript shell. The article does not name the defendant; the identification rests on the matching court, platform and ruling.","independence_group":"i24news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-10/christopher-duff-to-stand-trial-over-nsw-ai-court-data-breach/107135032","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"ABC News (Australia), 10 September 2026, read in full; mentions the New York ruling only as a precedent cited by a police prosecutor.","independence_group":"abc-au"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the Government used the Claude documents at trial or in plea or sentencing proceedings.","What the documents contained beyond counsel's description as defence-strategy reports.","Whether any appeal challenges the privilege ruling."],"geography":{"basis":"The ruling was made by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the memorandum places his arrest in the Northern District of Texas. Where he used Claude and his country of residence are not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a documented legal consequence of a person's AI use: a federal court ruled that a defendant's self-prepared defence documents written with Claude were open to Government inspection. The record rests on the court's memorandum; the conviction is recorded as context and is not attributed to the AI use.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court memorandum records counsel's representation that the seized documents memorialise Heppner's communications with Claude and that he used it to prepare defence-strategy reports.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"S.D.N.Y.: Judge Rakoff rules that a fraud defendant's written exchanges with Claude about his defence, seized by the FBI, are protected by neither attorney-client privilege nor work product","summary":"Bradley Heppner, a corporate executive charged in the Southern District of New York with securities fraud, wire fraud and related offences, used Anthropic's Claude in 2025, after receiving a grand jury subpoena, to prepare reports outlining his defence strategy. His counsel had not directed him to do so. FBI agents seized about thirty-one documents memorialising those exchanges when they searched his home in connection with his arrest in November 2025. Heppner claimed privilege over them. On 10 February 2026 Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted from the bench the Government's motion for a ruling that the documents were not protected from Government inspection by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and a memorandum filed 17 February 2026 gave the reasons: Claude is not an attorney, and the communications were not confidential under Anthropic's privacy policy. The court described the question as one of first impression nationwide. Heppner was convicted in May 2026 of securities fraud, wire fraud and other charges; no inspected source says whether the Claude documents were used at trial.","incidentDate":"2026-02-10","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-02-17","aiSystem":"Claude (Anthropic), a publicly available generative AI platform the defendant used on his own to prepare defence-strategy reports","aiProduct":"Claude","aiCompany":"Anthropic","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The defendant's self-prepared defence-strategy documents, written with Claude, lost the protection he claimed and were ruled open to Government inspection in his criminal case (court memorandum). Whether they were used at his trial is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: Heppner, the Claude user whose documents were ruled unprotected (court memorandum). No other person's harm from the AI use is reported; investors' fraud losses are the subject of the charges and are not counted here.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NY","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.652137/gov.uscourts.nysd.652137.27.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"United States v. Heppner, S.D.N.Y. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR), Memorandum (ECF No. 27), filed 17 February 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:12.292608+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:52.181801+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","privilege","evidence","claude","anthropic","own-use","criminal-case","sdny","first-impression"]}]}