Ogilvie Law Firm
Articles on AI and the Law
Practical analysis of how AI tools intersect with attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and patent practice. Written by Patent Attorney John Ogilvie.
The articles below form a three-part series on AI chatbot usage and evidentiary privilege. They may be read in any order, but the series is designed to build from the general to the specific.
For practical guidance on limiting risks while using AI to help explore or describe inventions, businesses can use the Safe Inventing with AI™ service, and individual inventors working on their provisional patent application can use the AI Patent Guide™ service.
Part 1 of 3
Attorney-Client Privilege and Chatbot Usage
The first federal court ruling on AI conversations and privilege — what United States v. Heppner actually held, why it does not say what many commentators claim, and what it means for professionals who use AI tools for legally sensitive work.
Read Article →Part 2 of 3
Work Product Doctrine and Chatbot Usage
The work product doctrine offers stronger protection for AI-assisted legal work than attorney-client privilege does in many scenarios. How Heppner and its companion decision Warner v. Gilbarco define the current landscape, and why attorney prompts may be the most defensible category of all.
Read Article →Part 3 of 3
AI Chatbots and Patent Practice: Privilege, Prior Art, and the Risks You May Not See Coming
Patent prosecution is not litigation. The privilege questions from the first two articles are joined here by a distinct set of risks — prior art, trade secret protection, inventorship, and the duty of candor — that can be outcome-determinative for patent rights, not just evidentiary protection.
Read Article →These articles are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Reading these articles does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have questions about how the issues discussed apply to your situation, use the Contact form to get in touch.