Before Uploading a Legal Opinion to AI: What Could Happen to Privilege?

Yet this seemingly simple step may raise a sensitive legal question: what happens when privileged legal advice is entered into an AI system?

As of August 2026, there is no Israeli judgment holding that the mere uploading of privileged information to a generative AI system automatically waives attorney-client privilege. Even so, the warning signs are already here. The National Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association has cautioned against entering client information into AI systems, especially where open or public tools are involved. The Israeli Supreme Court has also referred to the concern that information entered into artificial intelligence systems may leak, and in that context referred to the position of the National Ethics Committee.

To understand the risk, it is important to distinguish between two different concepts. Attorney-client privilege is an evidentiary protection that applies to certain legal communications. The lawyer's duty of confidentiality is broader, and applies even in situations where the question of evidentiary privilege is not clear-cut. As a result, even if it is not always clear whether privilege itself has been lost, the use of the information may already create difficulties from the standpoint of confidentiality, privacy, and legal risk management.

The issue is still developing in other jurisdictions as well, and the legal consequences may vary depending on the type of information involved, the type of system used, and the conditions governing its use.

Accordingly, the right question is not only whether AI may be used, but also questions such as what information is being shared, with which system, under what conditions, who may access it, and what happens to it once it is entered. There is a material difference between a public, open tool and a closed or enterprise system, and between general information and a privileged legal opinion, correspondence with legal counsel, or material prepared in connection with a dispute.

The bottom line is cautious but clear: copying privileged legal advice into a public AI tool may create real legal risk and should therefore be treated not as a technical step, but as a decision that should be considered carefully in advance.

The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only. The practical application of these matters depends on the circumstances of each case and may require appropriate legal review.