SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI
March 03, 2026 —
Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery.
Facts
Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Celebrating 29 Years – Thank You for Your Continued Trust!
April 20, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPFor 29 years, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP has grown alongside the clients and communities we proudly serve.
What began as a single office in Orange County has evolved into a multi-state firm with 11 locations across five states. Today, we are proud to be supported by a dedicated team of more than 200 attorneys and over 400 employees who work every day to deliver exceptional service and results.
This milestone is not just about where we started; it’s about the people who have helped shape who we are today. Our continued growth reflects the strength of our relationships, the trust of our clients and partners, and the commitment of our team.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence
May 12, 2026 —
Wood Smith Henning BermanChad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law.
Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wood Smith Henning Berman
GRSM Named Among 2026 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers®
December 08, 2025 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been recognized in the 2026 “Best Law Firms” survey published by Best Lawyers®.
To be eligible for a 2026 ranking, a law firm must have at least one lawyer recognized in the 2026 edition of the Best Lawyers in America® in a “Best Law Firms” practice area and geographic jurisdiction. GRSM announced earlier this year that 172 lawyers were recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers in America®, while 69 lawyers were named to the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch. Explore the
full list of GRSM recognized attorneys.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/12/25) – Banks Weather CRE Storm, Industrial Outdoor Storage Markets Soar, and Office Vacancy Decline
December 08, 2025 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, turnover rate for US homes drops to a 30-year low, global data center real estate funding struggles to keep pace, industrial real estate space surges, and more!
- U.S. regional banks’ commercial real estate loan books are proving broadly resilient despite worries sparked by a handful of soured loans, but the office sector continues to be a pain point. (Niket Nishant and Manya Saini, Reuters)
- The rapid buildout of AI and quantum infrastructure is sparking a boom in an often overlooked commercial real estate sector. (Diana Olick, CNBC)
- U.S. office vacancies showed their first year-over-year decline since the pandemic. (Joe Burns, Facilities Dive)
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss
April 20, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026).
Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds.
Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Contract Interpretation – Determining What the Contract Requires
March 24, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute? Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined.
In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
