← Back to context Comment by tiahura 11 hours ago Not every judge agrees with your statement of the law of privilege. 2 comments tiahura Reply rckoepke 10 hours ago Please link me to anyone pushing back against the precedent of US v. Heppner, S.D.N.Y. (2026). Would love to learn more! I'd rather not spout off on things that I'm not an expert on if I can help it, and I may have commented a bit fast above. jiveturkey 30 minutes ago the lawyer has to use a ZDR tier of LLM, not just any llm. the lawyer using the same LLM as the client would, destroys the attorney-client privilege.note that the client using an enterprise tier does not grant the same privilege.
rckoepke 10 hours ago Please link me to anyone pushing back against the precedent of US v. Heppner, S.D.N.Y. (2026). Would love to learn more! I'd rather not spout off on things that I'm not an expert on if I can help it, and I may have commented a bit fast above. jiveturkey 30 minutes ago the lawyer has to use a ZDR tier of LLM, not just any llm. the lawyer using the same LLM as the client would, destroys the attorney-client privilege.note that the client using an enterprise tier does not grant the same privilege.
jiveturkey 30 minutes ago the lawyer has to use a ZDR tier of LLM, not just any llm. the lawyer using the same LLM as the client would, destroys the attorney-client privilege.note that the client using an enterprise tier does not grant the same privilege.
Please link me to anyone pushing back against the precedent of US v. Heppner, S.D.N.Y. (2026). Would love to learn more! I'd rather not spout off on things that I'm not an expert on if I can help it, and I may have commented a bit fast above.
the lawyer has to use a ZDR tier of LLM, not just any llm. the lawyer using the same LLM as the client would, destroys the attorney-client privilege.
note that the client using an enterprise tier does not grant the same privilege.