Referencing two recent notable cases, Reuben Miller of TransPerfect Legal discusses that the AI privilege problem is control, not code!

In his post titled (wait for it!) The AI Privilege Problem Is Control, Not Code: Lessons from Munir and Heppner (available here), Reuben notes that the legal profession’s first encounter with the pitfalls of AI was hallucinated authority. Commentators tracking AI hallucination cases have identified more than 60 suspected or confirmed incidents in the UK, and more than 1,000 globally. Way more.

While that risk is obvious (or should be), the next risk is quieter, but potentially more serious: lawyers placing privileged or confidential material into AI systems without understanding where that data goes, who can access it, and what terms govern its use. These are AI confidentiality risks that often surface only after something goes wrong.

Recent decisions in the UK and US point in the same direction. In the UK, Munir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] is significant because it appears to be the first English court or tribunal decision to comment directly on the privilege risks of placing confidential material into AI tools. In the US, United States v Heppner [2026], a New York court treated communications with a public AI platform as falling outside the protected lawyer-client relationship.

So, to what same practical problem do the two cases point? And what are five questions legal teams should be able to answer before using AI on confidential material? Find out here, it’s only one click! I’m privileged to offer you this link! 😉

So, what do you think? Do you have a plan for addressing privileged or confidential material being put into AI systems? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using DALL-E-3, using the term “robot lawyer wearing a suit expressing shock when looking at a workstation”.

Disclosure: TransPerfect is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.