Courts in Texas and New York ruled on June 3 and June 4 that AI-generated prompts and outputs used in litigation preparation qualify as protected work product. These decisions in Tate Group Automotive v. Legacy Automotive Capital and Assini v. Hayward represent the first significant judicial endorsements that using AI tools does not automatically open legal strategy to opposing counsel. A federal magistrate in Connecticut ordered the production of prompts used by an expert witness, revealing the limits of this protection in the context of expert methodology. No new AI-specific privilege was created: courts applied existing legal doctrines to new technological tools. These trial-level decisions carry persuasive but not binding authority outside their respective jurisdictions.
Source: Read the original article
