With that rise, it is crucial that lawyers assess the risks associated with sharing privileged information with AI tools, such as automated drafting services, chatbots and e-discovery tools.

This article explores the use of AI tools in connection with privileged information and the possible implications on disclosure in litigation.

Under English law, there are two primary categories of LPP: legal advice privilege and litigation privilege.

Legal advice privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and their client which occur for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.

Litigation privilege, on the other hand, applies to documents created or communications that occur specifically in the context of contemplated litigation.

The case R v Derby Magistrates’ Court ex p B [1996] 4 All ER 526 confirmed the importance of LPP as a fundamental right in the administration of justice and one that cannot be easily overridden.

LPP, however, can be lost or waived if the privileged information is knowingly shared with someone who is not a party to the privileged relationship.

AI tools have been increasingly integrated into legal practice due to their benefits in terms of efficiency and productivity. These tools may form part of an in-house system, which is controlled by an internal secure server, or an external system provided by a third-party vendor.

By using these AI tools, privileged information may be uploaded or input into these systems and in effect, shared with a party who is outside of the lawyer-client relationship.

This poses a crucial question: by sharing privileged information with AI systems, whether internal or external, is privilege waived or lost?

The Privy Council in B & Ors v. Auckland District Law Society (New Zealand) [2003] UKPC 38 recognised that privilege is not waived generally due to it being disclosed for a limited purpose.

Further, in Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), it was found that privilege is not lost when confidential documents are shared on a limited basis.

Practically speaking, this means that privilege can be maintained, provided there is an express agreement between the privilege holders and the third party with which the confidential documents are shared.

In the context of litigation, the issue of waiving privilege may be raised if such privileged documents are shared with an AI system.

If a court determines that disclosure was made to a third party and that third party was not contractually bound by confidentiality provisions, LPP protection might be lost and the privileged information may be subject to an order for disclosure.

To mitigate the risks involved with sharing privileged information with AI systems, lawyers should take steps to ensure contracts are in place that hold a third-party service provider to strict adherence with confidentiality provisions.

Further, thorough vetting of AI service providers should occur to ensure data encryption is up to standard and data retention policies are reviewed.

It is also prudent to consider the option of using an in-house system, which affords greater protection by removing the need for third-party handling of data.

LPP remains a robust concept under English and Bermudian law that will continue to protect the lawyer-client relationship. The increased use of AI, however, poses risks to LPP protection.

The question of whether privilege is waived or lost when confidential information is used by AI tools depends on how well systems are vetted and secured by those who use them.

In exercising due diligence and providing contractual safeguards, lawyers can mitigate the risks posed by the use of AI on LPP.

First Published in The Royal Gazette, Legally Speaking column, January 2025

Share
X.com LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
Bermuda-1024x576-1
22 May 2025

Corporate real estate acquisition in Bermuda

Corporate real estate acquisitions in Bermuda are a matter of careful balance. That is because, a...

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
22 May 2025

Long-term reinsurance and ILS are set for growth

After a record-breaking  2024, Bermuda’s life reinsurance sector is likely to expand further this...

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
15 May 2025

Bermuda: The vital role of the principal representative

Bermuda's regulatory framework requires every insurance company registered under the Insurance Act 1...

Employment-and-Immigration
30 Apr 2025

The End of the Digital Nomad Visa: How Else Can Individuals Reside in Bermuda?

As of 28 February 2025, Bermuda officially discontinued its popular “Work from Bermuda” (WFB) Ce...

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
25 Apr 2025

Compliance with Pipa for trustees

The Personal Information Protection Act 2016, the island’s data protection legislation, applies to...

Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
14 Apr 2025

M&A transactions under PIPA (Bermuda)

Mergers and business acquisitions are among the many different types of business transactions that r...

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
1 Apr 2025

Bermuda: With everything growing, all of the ILS world will rise together

It’s been an exceptionally busy and record start to the year for the catastrophe bond sector, and ...

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
27 Mar 2025

Entering and Exiting Bermuda for Visa-Controlled Nationals

As it stands, with direct commercial flights to and from Bermuda only going from the United Kingdom,...

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
27 Mar 2025

How foreign companies become Bermuda companies

Bermuda, renowned as a global business hub, offers a robust legal and regulatory framework that attr...

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
24 Mar 2025

Bridging the USD51 trillion gap: asset-intensive reinsurance in Bermuda

In this article we examine the rise and regulatory landscape of Asset-Intensive Reinsurance (AIR) in...