A federal court just ruled that conversations with public AI chatbots are not protected by attorney-client privilege.
For HOA Boards and community managers, that ruling has a direct and practical consequence: if you copy legal advice from your association's attorney into ChatGPT, Claude, or any similar tool to explain it to homeowners or committee members, you may be stripping that advice of its legal protection, permanently.
This is not a hypothetical. The risk is real, and it is already happening.
What the Court Actually Said
In a recent New York federal case, a person under federal investigation used a public AI tool to create strategy documents about his legal situation. He fed in information from his lawyers and then shared the AI's output back with his attorneys. When federal agents seized his devices, he argued that those AI conversations were protected.
The court said no, for three reasons that apply well beyond that courtroom:
- The AI is not your attorney. Privilege protects communications between a client and their lawyer. A chatbot has no attorney-client relationship with anyone.
- The conversation was not confidential. The AI platform's terms of service allowed the company to collect, use, and potentially share user inputs — including with third parties. Any reasonable expectation of privacy was gone the moment he hit enter.
- The chats were not directed by counsel. Work product protection covers materials prepared by or at a lawyer's direction. The defendant created these on his own. That distinction matters.
The court also addressed what happens when already-privileged information gets pasted into a public AI tool. The answer: privilege is waived. Sharing protected legal advice with a third party — including an AI platform — strips the protection in real time.
Why HOA Boards and Managers Are Particularly Exposed
Community associations run on communication. Boards receive legal opinions on assessments, enforcement actions, contract disputes, and covenant interpretation. Managers field questions from homeowners who want plain-language explanations of complex legal positions.
The temptation to drop an attorney's memo into a chatbot and ask it to “explain this in simpler terms for the newsletter” is understandable. It saves time. It sounds helpful.
But under the court's reasoning, that single action could expose the entire memo — and every opinion that went into it — to discovery in a future lawsuit or dispute.
Here are the specific scenarios HOA leaders face every day that carry this risk:
- Pasting a legal opinion about whether to enforce a deed restriction into ChatGPT to draft a homeowner letter.
- Uploading an attorney's assessment strategy memo into an AI tool to create a summary for the Finance Committee.
- Running a legal analysis of a contractor dispute through a public chatbot to generate talking points for a Board meeting.
- Using AI to “translate” confidential litigation advice into an FAQ for the community website.
In each case, the moment that content enters the AI platform, the association may be making it available to opposing parties in future litigation.
The Privilege Problem Doesn't End at Free Tools
A paid subscription to an AI service does not automatically fix the problem. The court's analysis focused on the AI provider's terms of service, specifically, whether those terms allowed the company to access, train on, or share user inputs.
Many commercial AI platforms, including premium and enterprise tiers, still reserve some of those rights. Until an association has reviewed the specific data handling terms of an AI product and confirmed with counsel that the arrangement supports confidentiality, assume the risk applies.
Discovery is Coming for AI Conversations
This ruling opens a door that opposing counsel and regulators are already walking through. Expect to see deposition questions like: “Did you use any AI tools to prepare for this meeting or analyze documents related to this matter?” Expect subpoenas that ask for all prompts, inputs, and AI outputs related to a dispute.
That is not speculation. It is the logical next step after a court confirms that AI conversations with public tools are fair game.
Three Things Community Associations Should Do Now
- Set a clear rule about legal content and
AI.
Put it in writing: no one, including Board members, committee chairs, managers, or staff, may paste attorney communications, legal opinions, settlement discussions, or litigation materials into any AI tool that the association's legal counsel has not specifically approved. A vague instruction to “use caution” won't hold up. The rule needs to name the category of information and the consequence of disclosure.
- Route AI use through your attorney when legal content
is involved.
The court in this case noted that the outcome might have been different if an attorney had directed the use of AI. That means privilege may survive when a lawyer designs the workflow, selects the tool, and controls what goes in and what comes out. If your association wants to use AI to help communicate legal matters to homeowners, the right way to do that is with your attorney running the process — not around it.
- Train the people who handle legal
documents.
Board members rotate. Managers get busy. Neither group may have thought carefully about why pasting attorney advice into a chatbot is different from forwarding it to a colleague. It isn't intuitive. Build a simple rule into your onboarding and annual training: before you put anything into an AI tool, ask whether it came from your attorney or contains information you received in confidence. If yes, stop and call legal first.
The Bottom Line for Community Associations
The court in this case did not break new legal ground. Attorney-client privilege has always required a real attorney, a confidential communication, and a genuine expectation of privacy. What the ruling did was confirm that public AI tools fail all three tests, and that the act of pasting privileged content into one of these tools is itself a waiver.
HOA Boards and managers carry real legal exposure every day related to enforcement decisions, assessment disputes, contract disputes, and fair housing questions. The attorneys advising on those matters invest significant effort in creating work product that the association needs to protect.
Using a public AI tool to simplify that work for a newsletter or committee report is not worth the risk of losing that protection.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
