We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Jed S. Rakoff
U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York
All 'recognized privileges' require 'a trusting human relationship' with 'a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline' — conditions an AI platform cannot meet.
AI Unverifiable
source
(2026)
2mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Unverifiable
Quote (with internal quotation marks): "All 'recognized privileges' require 'a trusting human relationship' with 'a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline' — conditions an AI platform cannot meet." Attributed to Jed S. Rakoff (U.S. District Judge, SDNY), 2026, sourced to a Harvard Law Review blog "Recent Case: United States v. Heppner" (March 2026). Checks: (1) Year 2026 — current. (2) Source: confirmed to exist at the cited harvardlawreview.org URL; web search confirms the piece concerns whether communications with AI chatbots qualify for evidentiary privilege, and that the reasoning is exactly this — recognized privileges require a trusting human relationship with a licensed professional owing fiduciary duties and subject to discipline, conditions an AI platform cannot meet. (3) Relevancy: on-point for "Regulated industries should prohibit AI from making autonomous decisions where fiduciary duty applies." (4) Vote alignment: the vote "for" correctly matches. CAVEAT on attribution: Harvard Law Review "Recent Case" blog posts are typically authored by HLR student editors (often unsigned), and the post characterizes/quotes the court's reasoning; it is not clear the words are Judge Rakoff's own (he is the SDNY judge associated with the matter, but the quoted synthesis may be the note's, not a verbatim Rakoff opinion). HLR blocks WebFetch (403) so I could not read the page to confirm whether this is a direct Rakoff quotation or the editors' paraphrase. Marking ai_unverifiable: source content inaccessible and the attribution to Rakoff (vs. the case-note author/court) could not be positively confirmed; recommend a maintainer verify the speaker against the primary opinion in United States v. Heppner.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 12d ago
replying to Jed S. Rakoff