Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude for Legal

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 204 posts

Re: Claude for Legal

#121

Post by intrasight »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #86
miki123211 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, are Google queries about the law considered attorney-client privilege? What about library records? Browser history? Google Maps / Uber / car travel history (when traveling to an attorney's office)? If somebody Googles "best attorney for murder NYC" a day after a murder is committed but before any case is filed against them (so they clearly had some reason to expect that case), could that be used as evidenc…

I'm not sure if you were actually asking the question but regardless the answer is that all of those absolutely can and are regularly used as evidence

Parent comment was asking about attorney-client privilege which means there's an attorney in the communication loop. If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard. But this is an active area of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to AI. I expect some important cases will happen

Re: Claude for Legal

#122

Post by weezing »

troupo wrote: post #81
droidjj wrote: post #7

As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, but there are two roadblocks that I'm not sure how Anthropic will navigate: (1) For non-lawyers who use these skills/connectors/whatchamacallits to try to get legal advice, their communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege. This will absolutely bite some people in the ass. (2) If a lawyer uses this with confidential client information (which, to the uninitiated,…

> As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, As in "I'm excited to win a lot of money dismantling hallucinated quotations and invalid assumptions"?

You can't criticize LLMs and Anthropic on a website where everybody and their grandma uses them for everything. New generation of brainlets that are gonna be clueless without constant Internet connection is brewing and it's gonna be hilarious.

Re: Claude for Legal

#123

Post by there_is_try »

trollbridge wrote: post #104
bryant wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation for #1 - https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2026/03/united-states-v-he... > Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York — addressing “a question of first impression nationwide” — ruled that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, bu…

Good argument for using DeepSeek with an anonymous form of payment. Discovery in China will be a tad more difficult…

I use it for medical question for this same reason

Re: Claude for Legal

#124

Post by intrasight »

Honest question: How do I convince my fiancé - who is a very busy attorney - to allocate some time to get familiar with the capabilities of tools like Claude for Legal?

Re: Claude for Legal

#125

Post by jorisw »

I am reminded of Nilay Patel's "Beware Software Brain" piece in which he cites Legal/Law as one of the industries that tech bros vastly underestimate in terms of how much can be automated this way

https://www.theverge.com/podcast/917029/software-brain-ai-ba...

(Search for "another example" for the relevant section)

Re: Claude for Legal

#126

Post by dadoomer »

nerdsniper wrote: post #118
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nobody would know about it unless you told them for some reason

That might fall under the “unethical” part of my question. Could “probably” get away with it if done carefully, but I’d rather be fully in compliance.

Why would self-hosting for privacy reasons be unethical just because the query would be subject to subpoena in principle?

Re: Claude for Legal

#128

Post by tln »

droidjj wrote: post #7

As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, but there are two roadblocks that I'm not sure how Anthropic will navigate: (1) For non-lawyers who use these skills/connectors/whatchamacallits to try to get legal advice, their communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege. This will absolutely bite some people in the ass. (2) If a lawyer uses this with confidential client information (which, to the uninitiated,…

On (1), what if the law firm hosts the AI chat?

It seems like local AI could be valuable for law firms for reasons of (2) as well

Re: Claude for Legal

#129

Post by weird-eye-issue »

intrasight wrote: post #121
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you were actually asking the question but regardless the answer is that all of those absolutely can and are regularly used as evidence

Parent comment was asking about attorney-client privilege which means there's an attorney in the communication loop. If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard. But this is an active area of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to AI. I expect some important cases will happen

Just because they have a lawyer does not mean things like their browser history and every other example in the comment I replied to would not be permitted as evidence...

Except for something like specifically looking up a lawyer

Re: Claude for Legal

#130

Post by x187463 »

intrasight wrote: post #124

Honest question: How do I convince my fiancé - who is a very busy attorney - to allocate some time to get familiar with the capabilities of tools like Claude for Legal?

I must believe, as with the medical profession's uptake of AI tools, if these tools prove themselves to be reliable and meaningfully helpful, she will experience more than enough professional influence to learn the tools.
Post reply on HN