The Heppner Ruling¶
Background¶
In United States v. Heppner, 25 Cr. 503 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York addressed whether documents created by a criminal defendant using an AI platform were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. The court held they were not.
This decision illustrates precisely why JuryBinder's architecture matters — and why JuryBinder is legally distinct from the scenario the court addressed.
What happened¶
Bradley Heppner, after receiving a grand jury subpoena, used Anthropic's Claude AI platform to prepare defense strategy documents. The government moved to compel production of those documents. The court ruled that neither attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine protected them.
The three reasons privilege failed¶
1. Claude is not an attorney. Attorney-client privilege requires communication between a client and an attorney. An AI platform is not an attorney, and no attorney-client relationship can exist with one.
2. No reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Anthropic's privacy policy, which Heppner agreed to, explicitly states that the company collects user inputs and outputs, may use them to train models, and may disclose them to third parties including governmental authorities. By using the platform, Heppner voluntarily disclosed his strategy to a third party. Voluntary disclosure to a third party destroys privilege.
3. Not directed by counsel. Heppner used Claude on his own initiative, not at his attorney's direction. The work product doctrine protects materials prepared "in anticipation of litigation" under the direction of counsel. Self-directed use of a third-party tool did not meet this standard.
Why JuryBinder is different¶
JuryBinder addresses the second prong — voluntary disclosure to a third party — by eliminating it structurally.
When an attorney uses JuryBinder, their notes and strategy never reach any third party. There is no Anthropic. There is no vendor holding user data. There is no server to receive a subpoena. The work product stays within the attorney's hardware, where it belongs.
The court in Heppner specifically noted in a footnote that the ruling was fact-specific: it addressed a defendant using AI independently, not an attorney using a professional tool as part of their work product practice. JuryBinder is used by attorneys, as a work product tool, under the direction of counsel — a legally distinct scenario.
The accurate claim¶
JuryBinder's marketing makes one specific claim about legal protection:
"No third-party server to subpoena."
This is accurate. A subpoena can still be issued to the attorney directly for their case files. JuryBinder does not make files immune from subpoena — it ensures there is no third-party custodian holding a copy of them. The attorney remains in control of their own work product.
This is not legal advice
This page summarizes a publicly available court decision for informational purposes. Work product doctrine analysis is jurisdiction-specific and fact-dependent. Consult your firm's ethics counsel for guidance specific to your practice.
Citation¶
United States v. Heppner, 25 Cr. 503 (JSR), Document 27 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), Judge Jed S. Rakoff.