Texas court protects represented litigant’s ChatGPT conversations | Legal Loop

Over the past few months, I’ve been covering rulings addressing the applicability of the attorney work-product privilege to litigation research conducted with artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Across the cases, the status of the person using AI has varied, necessarily impacting the courts’ analysis and conclusions.

For example, in February, I discussed U.S. v. Heppner, which involved an unrepresented party. S.D.N.Y. District Court Judge Rakoff concluded that when the defendant used the free version of Claude’s generative AI tool to draft defense strategy materials — which he later handed over to his attorney — the privilege did not apply.

Next, I wrote about Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., an E.D. Mich. case involving a pro se plaintiff’s AI usage. United States Magistrate Judge Patti declined to grant the Defendant’s request for “all documents and information concerning (the) use of third-party AI tools in connection with this lawsuit,” reasoning that the AI tool was used in preparation for litigation, and thus the requested materials were protected by work product privilege.

Shortly thereafter, I covered New York Supreme Court Justice Rhonda E. Fischer’s holding in Assini v. Hayward, a case that also addressed a pro se litigant’s AI-generated work prepared in anticipation of litigation. As in Warner, the court agreed that the interactions with ChatGPT were sufficiently strategic to qualify as work product.

The most recent case, Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC, No. 25-BC11B-0020 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 11th Div. 2026), was handed down in June, and focused on the application of the work-product doctrine to a new factual scenario: a represented party’s AI research. (Online: https://app.minerva26.com/case_law/70496-tate-grp-auto-llc-v-legacy-auto-cap-llc)

Unlike Heppner, in Tate the plaintiff was represented by his attorney when the ChatGPT conversations occurred. The defendants asserted that either the privilege was waived due to the AI use or that Tate’s interactions with AI were not protected by the attorney work-product privilege since he was not a lawyer.

The Court explained that the Texas standard for attorney work product privilege is clear on its face, and applies to “material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party.” Because the AI chats did not constitute either disclosure to an adversary or circumstances that substantially increased the likelihood that an adversary would obtain the materials, they were protected.

However, the Court, recognizing that the work product protections were not unlimited, did require the Plaintiff to “disclose to Defendants all discovery materials or products that it has shared with ChatGPT (by Bates number, if applicable), including any materials that were produced pursuant to the Protective Order.”

This growing body of case law reflects the increasing number of disputes over whether AI-assisted litigation research is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. Although the factual scenarios and legal standards vary across jurisdictions, each decision offers useful guidance on an issue that will become more common as AI adoption rises.

A clearer consensus will likely emerge as more courts address these questions. As I’ve said before, I expect courts will ultimately treat AI-assisted research much like other forms of online litigation preparation, whether performed by counsel or self-represented litigants. For now, however, the law remains unsettled, and future decisions will determine whether my prediction proves correct.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise.She is the nationally-recognized author of “Cloud Computing for Lawyers” (2012) and co-authors “Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier” (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors “Criminal Law in New York,” a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at [email protected].