Employers and employees have both been increasingly turning to publicly available generative AI (artificial intelligence) tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Grok and other similar platforms. In some high-profile cases, litigants have attempted to use those types of tools in place of legal advice. Some recent US-based cases serve as a strong warning of the risks in relying on AI tools as a substitute for legal representation and advice.

‍

In United States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), the defendant fed information that he had received from his lawyers (which are normally protected by solicitor-client privilege), generated additional documents without input from those lawyers (which, if produced by those lawyers, would also be shielded from disclosure) and subsequently shared them with the lawyers. In that case, the court held that the documents generated by the AI (in that case, Claude) were not protected by solicitor-client privilege and therefore weren’t protected by solicitor-client privilege and could be used against Heppner. This decision was due in large part to the fact that the individual was sending information to a third party (Claude) that

‍

In Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Krafton, Inc. C.A. No. 2025-0805-LWW (Del. Ch. March 16, 2026) (Will, V.C.), a Delaware case, the CEO of the defendant game publisher notoriously turned to ChatGPT for a second opinion after being told by the company’s legal counsel that they likely could not fire key employees for just cause in order to try to avoid paying employees of the developer, Unknown Worlds, over $200 million in performance bonuses relating to the projected success of its upcoming game Subnautica 2. In that case, the CEO used ChatGPT to create a strategy (despite previous advice from legal counsel that Krafton would likely be contractually obligated to pay out the bonuses) to try to avoid paying those bonuses; the CEO mostly followed that advice from the AI including by locking down the developer’s ability to publish the game as planned in order to generate leverage for a settlement. When negotiations stalled, Krafton removed key employees from the developer’s board and terminated the developer’s leadership team, citing the “premature” pending release of the game as something that would “inflict long-term damage” to the game and franchise.

‍

One eye-opening piece of the Krafton case was the fact that the court’s decision included extensive references to the CEO’s conversations with ChatGPT and the resulting strategies attempted by the company. Although the decision itself does not address how those AI chats came into evidence, the fact that they were disclosed and referenced in the decision serves as another warning of the dangers of relying upon AI in place of legal counsel.

‍

Although – as far as we are aware – no similar cases have emerged in Canada yet, the rules around solicitor-client privilege are similar and it would not be surprising if future Canadian cases reach a similar decision. At minimum, the above cases serve as a strong warning sign that relying upon AI for legal work at least creates a significant risk of having to disclose and justify those conversations in court later.

‍

It is also worth understanding that despite AI being quite good at some tasks (such as summarizing or organizing information), chatbots have a distinct bias towards providing responses that fit what the user is seeking. For example, if someone asks a chatbot whether an employee has been constructively dismissed, its answer will likely be “yes” if the query is from the employee and “no” if the query is from the employer. In most cases, the answer won’t be this clear-cut and understanding that gray area and the degree of risk involved in your situation is precisely where legal professionals can be most useful.

‍

In short, AI platforms can be a great tool for surface-level research or high-level explanations of concepts but for the most part should not be used in place of legal advice or (if you are represented by a lawyer) without consulting your lawyer first. Of course, the risk involved will also vary depending on the stakes involved and the legal topic.

‍