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

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: Claude for Legal

#191

Post by weird-eye-issue »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #146
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're joking but there's actually active court cases right now where they have done just that Just a few of the perps: Hisham Abugharbieh (Florida student murders), Jonathan Rinderknecht (Palisades Fire arson), Phoenix Ikner (FSU shooter), Ryan Schaefer (Missouri State vandalism) There's also that thing involving somebody I think he used to be in the NFL and he was using ChatGPT to try to hide the bo…

Interesting these are all examples of people that we want in jail forever. So again this is not gonna happen to you it’s gonna happen to the psychos which is probably what you want

Don't you realize that this list is obviously going to be biased towards high profile cases and that this sort of evidence could be used against people accused of lesser crimes?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vandal-charged-confessing-...

You want this guy in jail forever?

Re: Claude for Legal

#192

Post by einsteinx2 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #23

> for the legal workflows we see most I'm a bit bothered by this line. Does it mean this is based on customer's sessions? Are they entitled to build knowledge bases for every profession, topic and workflow in the world using customer data?

> Does it mean this is based on customer's sessions?

Yes

> Are they entitled to build knowledge bases for every profession, topic and workflow in the world using customer data?

They certainly believe they are and they’re quite open about it.

It even has a name, Clio. Per their page it’s a “system for privacy-preserving insights into real-world AI use”

Here’s their page on it: https://www.anthropic.com/research/clio

Re: Claude for Legal

#193

Post by dr_kretyn »

yabones wrote: post #155

Who's accountable when it does something wrong? Surely Anthropic Inc won't take the fall for you. There's no errors or omissions insurance, no legal accountability, no attorney-client privilege, and no bar association to handle disciplinary action. I think we should be realistic here, this is a more advanced version of those "will kits" that spit out a PDF. The legal system will not look fondly upon this stuff until…

They have a big disclaimer on the repo which says they're in no way liable. This looks more like a marketing use case category than anything useful.

Re: Claude for Legal

#194

Post by rayiner »

miki123211 wrote: post #63
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…

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…

Google queries aren’t privileged. (An attorney’s Google queries are probably work product protected, though I’m not sure anyone has tried.) Your Uber travel history isn’t protected: the privilege applies only to communications.

Google queries are used to prosecute people all the time. It’s actually hilarious. Criminals regularly Google incriminating stuff about criming.

Re: Claude for Legal

#195

Post by m463 »

highphive wrote: post #154
zero_shift wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, but safe to say, don't rely on or put your legal defense etc. (or elements of it) into AI unless you want it discovered. "You are an expert defense counsel with experience in Murder 1. Do not hallucinate. Let's say tomorrow my spouse is found strangled..."

Surely they can't hold a simple hypothetical against me. Just because it _happened_ to come true.

nobody could have predicted it (except maybe prediction markets)

Re: Claude for Legal

#196

Post by nsvd2 »

hirsin wrote: post #45
lionkor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are training on your business's data so that their AI can replace your business later. If you don't believe it, name one thing they didn't train on.

It definitely looks like the old tale come true - at Microsoft people would warn against using Google because then Google could figure out what we're working on, since it was pretty easy to tell where a query was coming from. Sounded far fetched back then, and on the face of it illegal, but now it's just common sense I imagine.

It's pretty clear to me that these systems have a massive potential for intelligence agencies as people move more and more of their internal thought process to an external tool.

And, of course, intelligence agencies are good at realizing potential.

Re: Claude for Legal

#197

Post by cucumber3732842 »

vkou wrote: post #185
hansvm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd invite you to ask a few poor people what happened the last time the government "definitely sent" some important document or another in the mail. If a governmental employee gets the address wrong, gets the name wrong, accidentally knocks the mail in the trash, lazily marks the job as complete without sending anything, etc, the burden shifts to the poor person to prove not just that they didn't receive the mail but…

Nothing you described is unique to the government. If you miss paying your power bill or a medical bill for similar reasons, you're going to have problems. And you receive a lot more demands for money from people who aren't the government than you do from it. You can sue both in small claims court. You don't need money or a lawyer for that.

>Nothing you described is unique to the government. If you miss paying your power bill or a medical bill for similar reasons, you're going to have problems

You're right it's not unique to the government. But you have uniquely little recourse and the stakes are uniquely high when the government does it.

I've had an old ISP threatening to send me to collections for years over a "you didn't cancel" vs "but I have the confirmation" type dispute from an old apartment. The government would've escalated the fine to thousands and applied violence by now.

>And you receive a lot more demands for money from people who aren't the government than you do from it.

If you do much beyond live in the pod and eat the bugs the government reaches parity real quick. My buddy needed four agencies to sign off on a mail order shed (would've been 3 but he was within 200ft of a stream). Next time he's not asking.

>You can sue both in small claims court. You don't need money or a lawyer for that.

You cannot "just sue" the government for petty cock ups in small claims. Well you can but it'll be dismissed instantly. You have to go through rounds of "administrative" appeals processes that are tilted against you and invariably make traffic court (also administrative BTW) look like a shining beacon of due process. Furthermore, these processes are usually allowed to impose expense on you. Stuff like "well if you want to contest X you have to hire a third party Y for four figures" type stuff. Only after several rounds of that does it go to court. And this takes years, can you say opportunity cost.

I would rather be wrongfully harassed by actual gun toting crime investigating law enforcement any day because at least you have well established and protected rights when those guys come after you.

Re: Claude for Legal

#198

Post by austinjp »

intrasight wrote: post #179
x187463 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would just prefer her to be in front of that wave

Find people in her field who are already hopping on the wave. Better still, gently persuade her to find those people. She'll probably know where to look. In fact, I'd be surprised if her professional newsletters aren't already starting to surface those folks.

Re: Claude for Legal

#199

Post by codesentinel »

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,…

[flagged]

Re: Claude for Legal

#200

Post by voxic11 »

Majromax wrote: post #140
intrasight wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard. But the tool is not your attorney, so it can't be the originator of attorney-client privilege. The situation is no different than if you get informal legal advice from a friend: even if that friend is an attorney , the communication is unprivileged unless it's part of a formal representation.

What if a user puts an email from their attorney into chatgpt so they can ask questions about it to better understand it? Surely the email would still be covered but maybe the questions and answers wouldn't be?

Or what if your phone automatically generates a summary of your attorneys text message, would that be covered?

Post reply on HN