Artificial intelligence tools are quickly becoming part of everyday operations from drafting emails to summarizing documents, AI platforms offer speed and convenience that can be appealing to busy boards and managers, but a recent federal court decision serves as an important reminder: Using public AI tools to analyze legal issues may come with unintended consequences.
While the case is not binding in California, it provides early insight into how courts may evaluate AI generated materials and why associations should proceed carefully.
The Case: United States v. Heppner
In United States v. Heppner, a federal court in New York considered whether documents created using a publicly available AI chatbot were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
The defendant, facing a government investigation, used an AI platform on his own to draft materials outlining potential legal strategies. He later shared those materials with his attorney. When law enforcement seized the documents, he argued they were privileged. The court disagreed.
The communications were between the defendant and an AI platform — not an attorney — and because the platform’s terms allowed collection and potential disclosure of user data, the court held the materials were not confidential and not privileged.
Importantly, the court also reaffirmed that a document does not become privileged simply because it is later shared with counsel.
Why This Matters for Community Associations
Boards and managers regularly handle sensitive matters — including owner disputes, enforcement decisions, threatened litigation, and personnel issues. When those situations arise, it may be tempting to use an AI tool to analyze options, draft responses, or organize key facts.
However, entering those details into a publicly available AI platform can create unintended risk.
If a board member or manager uses a consumer AI tool to analyze enforcement options, draft legal responses, evaluate potential claims, or summarize strategy discussions, the resulting materials may not be protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In a dispute or lawsuit, those materials could become discoverable — even if they are later forwarded to association counsel.
Directors have fiduciary duties to act in the association’s best interests, which include safeguarding confidential and privileged information. Independent use of public AI tools to analyze legal issues can unintentionally undermine those protections.
AI can certainly be a useful productivity resource, but when legal matters are involved, caution and coordination with counsel is essential.
Associations should:
- Avoid entering sensitive legal facts or strategy into public AI platforms
- Consult association counsel before using AI in connection with disputes or potential litigation
- Understand that many consumer AI tools reserve rights to collect and use user data
Enterprise-level platforms with contractual confidentiality protections may present different considerations, but they should still be evaluated carefully with counsel.
Technology will continue to evolve, and courts — including those in California — will continue addressing these issues. This early decision is a reminder that convenience should not come at the expense of confidentiality.
If your association has questions about implementing or using AI tools, our team at Beaumont Tashjian is available to help you navigate these emerging risks responsibly.