Texas Judge Extends Work-Product Protection to AI Chats

Texas court breaks with federal AI privilege precedent

A Texas Business Court judge has ruled that conversations between non-lawyers and publicly available generative AI tools can qualify as protected attorney work product under state procedural rules, marking a significant departure from recent federal court decisions on the same issue.

In a June 3, 2026 minute entry for Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC, Judge Grant Dorfman of the Texas Business Court Eleventh Division denied a defendant's motion to compel production of a plaintiff's AI conversations. The judge found that materials prepared in anticipation of litigation using AI tools could fall under work-product protection, even when created by non-lawyers.

According to Ogletree Deakins, which first reported the decision, Judge Dorfman cited Texas rules of civil procedure defining work product as "material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party." The judge emphasized that this protection extends beyond attorney-created materials to include work by corporate principals and pro se litigants.

Why it matters

As generative AI becomes standard in business operations, courts are establishing conflicting frameworks for how privilege doctrines apply to AI-assisted work. This ruling suggests companies operating under Texas law may have more latitude to use AI tools without automatically waiving privilege—a critical consideration as litigation preparation increasingly involves AI platforms. The divergence between state and federal approaches creates uncertainty for multi-jurisdiction cases.

Federal courts take stricter view

Judge Dorfman explicitly disagreed with United States v. Heppner, a February 2026 landmark case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That federal court held that exchanges with publicly available generative AI platforms are not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, reasoning that inputting sensitive information into third-party consumer AI constitutes voluntary disclosure outside the attorney-client relationship.

The Texas judge instead endorsed reasoning from two other district court cases involving self-represented litigants, which held that work-product protection is waived only when materials are disclosed to an adversary or in a manner substantially likely to reach one. Under this framework, using an AI tool does not automatically trigger waiver.

Limits and practical guidance

The ruling was not unlimited. Judge Dorfman ordered the plaintiff to produce all discovery materials shared with the AI tool, including materials covered by protective order. He also recommended the parties clarify through amended protective orders whether and how confidential information may be shared with AI systems.

For employers, the decision highlights several risk areas. Organizations should audit how employees use AI tools for employment decisions, complaint responses, and litigation preparation. While Texas law may offer protection, using public AI platforms carries higher waiver risk than enterprise-based tools. Companies must also consider whether AI conversations constitute electronically stored information subject to preservation under litigation holds.

The case underscores a rapidly evolving legal landscape where courts are reaching divergent conclusions about AI and privilege. As AI adoption accelerates, organizations need clear policies governing when and how employees may use these tools for sensitive matters.

Details of the ruling were first reported by Ogletree Deakins.