Arnold Peter
Date: June 24, 2026
Originally published on LinkedIn

I am honored that the Daily Journal published my latest article, “Privilege Survives AI Only If Lawyers Do Their Job,” examining three recent federal decisions that may become foundational cases in the rapidly developing law of artificial intelligence, attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, work product, and discovery.

The article analyzes:

• United States v. Heppner — a first-impression decision addressing whether communications with a public AI platform may lose privilege protections.
• Morgan v. V2X, Inc. — a decision that may ultimately prove even more influential because it focuses on safeguards, governance, and responsible AI use rather than treating AI itself as the problem.
• Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co. — a case highlighting that AI prompts and instructions used by experts may themselves become discoverable.

AI Governance, Safeguards & Responsible Legal Practice

My conclusion is straightforward: courts are increasingly focusing less on whether AI was used and more on how it was used. Lawyers who implement appropriate safeguards, supervise AI use, understand platform terms, and maintain disciplined workflows are likely to be in a far stronger position than those who either avoid the technology entirely or use it carelessly.

We are witnessing the birth of an entirely new body of law. For litigators, transactional attorneys, in-house counsel, judges, and legal technologists, these issues are no longer theoretical. They are becoming part of everyday legal practice.

There is a saying that has been circulating in the legal and technology communities, and while I certainly do not claim credit for it, I believe it captures the moment well:

“AI will not replace lawyers. However, lawyers who understand and embrace AI may replace lawyers who refuse to learn it or use it responsibly.”

Human Review & Verification of AI-Assisted Legal Work

Speaking from experience, AI has already become a meaningful force multiplier in my own practice. Like any powerful tool, it requires judgment, supervision, and verification. Used properly, however, it allows lawyers to spend less time on routine tasks and more time delivering strategic advice, advocacy, and client service.

As many know, I recently learned a painful but valuable lesson when AI-assisted work product was not subjected to a sufficiently rigorous final human review before filing. The technology is not the problem; when combined with the lawyer’s obligation to verify and supervise which remains unchanged. That experience reinforced my belief that AI should neither be blindly trusted nor reflexively rejected. Instead, it should be thoughtfully integrated into legal practice with appropriate safeguards, oversight, and accountability.

The lesson from these emerging cases is not that lawyers should fear AI. Rather, it is that lawyers must learn to govern it, supervise it, verify its output, and incorporate it into their practices ethically and intelligently. Those who do so will likely provide better, faster, and more cost-effective representation for their clients.

Responsible AI Use in Smaller Law Firms

For smaller firms in particular, AI may be the great equalizer. Properly deployed, it allows attorneys to compete with firms many times their size, improve efficiency, and expand access to high-quality legal representation. The technology is changing the profession whether we embrace it or not. The better path is to learn it, understand it, and use it responsibly.

I would be interested in hearing how other attorneys, judges, and legal professionals are approaching AI governance, privilege protection, discovery obligations, and ethical compliance within their organizations.

Read the Full Daily Journal Article

Read the full article here: https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/392254-privilege-survives-ai-only-if-lawyers-do-their-job

 

Frequently Asked Questions About AI & Attorney-Client Privilege

What legal issues does this article discuss?

The post introduces questions involving artificial intelligence, attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, work-product protection, and discovery. It emphasizes how lawyers use and supervise AI tools.

Which federal cases are discussed in the Daily Journal article?

The post identifies United States v. Heppner, Morgan v. V2X, Inc., and Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co. These cases are presented as addressing different aspects of AI use, safeguards, and discovery.

What safeguards does Arnold Peter emphasize for lawyers using AI?

The post emphasizes understanding platform terms, supervising AI use, maintaining disciplined workflows, and conducting rigorous human review. Its central message is that responsible AI adoption requires oversight and accountability.

Why is human review important for AI-assisted legal work?

Arnold Peter describes verification and supervision as continuing responsibilities when lawyers use AI. He emphasizes reviewing AI-assisted work carefully before filing and applying professional judgment to the technology’s output.

Why might AI prompts and instructions matter in discovery?

The post highlights Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co. as raising questions about whether prompts and instructions used by experts may become discoverable. It does not suggest that every AI interaction must be disclosed.

Does the post recommend avoiding AI in legal practice?

No. It advocates thoughtful integration with appropriate safeguards, supervision, verification, and accountability. Arnold Peter argues that responsible use can improve efficiency and allow lawyers to devote more time to strategic advice and client service.

Where can I read the full analysis?

The full article, “Privilege Survives AI Only If Lawyers Do Their Job,” is available through the Daily Journal.