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
Senior United States district judge
all “[r]ecognized privileges” require, among other things, “a trusting human relationship,” such as, in the attorney-client context, a relationship “with a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline.” [...] No such relationship exists, or could exist, between an AI user and a platform such as Claude.AI Verified source (Feb 17, 2026)
2mo ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Authentic. The linked PDF is a memorandum in United States v. Heppner; page 6 contains the quoted language verbatim apart from the allowed omitted citation in [...], including “all “[r]ecognized privileges” require ... “a trusting human relationship” ... “with a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline”” and “No such relationship exists, or could exist, between an AI user and a platform such as Claude.” The memorandum is authored by Jed S. Rakoff and signed/dated February 17, 2026 on page 12, so the stored author, date, source URL, and content are correct. ([storage.courtlistener.com](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138.27.0.pdf))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 16d ago
Disputed
The quote is not verbatim as given. The cited Harvard Law Review URL is a March 23, 2026 blog essay by Elizabeth X. Guo, not by Jed S. Rakoff. ([harvardlawreview.org](https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2026/03/united-states-v-heppner/)) Rakoff’s actual February 17, 2026 Heppner opinion says all “[r]ecognized privileges” require, among other things, a “trusting human relationship” and, in the attorney-client context, a relationship “with a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline”; it then separately states that no such relationship exists, or could exist, between an AI user and Claude. ([storage.courtlistener.com](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138.27.0.pdf)) The submitted wording compresses and paraphrases those separate statements (especially “conditions an AI platform cannot meet”), so this is a materially altered Rakoff quote rather than a real verbatim one.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
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
· 1mo ago
replying to Jed S. Rakoff