Your Chatbot Is Not Your Lawyer

Your Chatbot Is Not Your Lawyer

In November 2025, OpenAI published a statement telling ChatGPT users that The New York Times was asking the court to order the company to hand over 20 million of their conversations. The statement said that 800 million people use ChatGPT each week, including to handle some of the most personal parts of their lives. The request was part of the newspaper’s copyright claim against OpenAI, and it covered a random sample of conversations from users who, according to OpenAI, had no connection to the case.

OpenAI’s page on the litigation records that it was obliged to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to produce the de-identified sample while it appealed. The case is American, but it shows how conversations with a chatbot are treated once litigation begins: as stored records held by a company, which a court can order to be produced. For anyone in England and Wales who uses these tools to think through a dispute, the domestic rules on disclosure and privilege lead to a similar place.

Chat histories are stored records

ChatGPT keeps a history of conversations in the user’s account. OpenAI’s help centre explains how users can export that history, which arrives as a downloadable file containing their chat history and other account data.

This has two practical consequences. The conversation exists as a written record after it has ended, in the same way as an email or a text message. The user can also retrieve it, which is relevant to the question of whether it falls within their disclosure obligations if they later become a party to proceedings.

What the disclosure rules say

CPR Part 31, which governs disclosure in most civil claims, defines a document as anything in which information of any description is recorded. A chat history falls within that definition. A party’s duty of disclosure covers documents that are or have been in their control, and the rules treat a document as within a party’s control if they have or have had a right to possession of it, or a right to inspect or take copies of it.

Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose the documents they rely on, together with documents that adversely affect their own case or another party’s case, or support another party’s case. Whether a particular set of conversations has to be disclosed will depend on its relevance to the issues and on the order made in the case. The practical point is that someone who uses a chatbot to work through the facts of a dispute may be creating documents that fall within these rules.

Legal privilege and AI tools

Legal advice privilege protects confidential communications between a client and their lawyer made for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice. In [2013] UKSC 1, which concerned tax advice given to Prudential plc by its accountants, the Supreme Court held by a majority of five to two that the privilege does not extend to legal advice given by accountants, and that any extension beyond the legal profession was a matter for Parliament.

It follows that a conversation with a chatbot does not attract legal advice privilege. Litigation privilege, which can protect material created for the dominant purpose of existing or reasonably contemplated litigation, is a separate question and depends on the circumstances in which the material was created.

Privilege also depends on confidentiality. A person who copies their solicitor’s advice into a consumer chatbot is sharing it with a third-party service. Anyone who may want to rely on privilege later should take advice before doing that.

Obtaining someone else’s chat history

The fact that chat histories can be disclosed does not make it lawful to go looking for them. Accessing another person’s account without authorisation can be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

The family courts have dealt with a similar situation before. In [2010] EWCA Civ 908, documents had been copied from a husband’s computer by his wife’s brother to assist her in financial proceedings. The Court of Appeal held that they had been obtained in breach of confidence and rejected the argument that this kind of self-help could be justified. The proper routes to another party’s records are disclosure, consent or an application to the court.

What this means for disputes and evidence

We have written before about the digital footprints different generations leave behind. Chatbot histories add a new and very personal category to that footprint. For solicitors, it is worth asking clients early whether they have discussed the facts of a dispute with an AI tool, both for disclosure purposes and to make sure confidential advice has not been shared with one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can ChatGPT conversations be used as evidence in the UK?

They can be. Under CPR Part 31 a document is anything in which information is recorded, which includes a chat history. If the conversations are relevant to the issues in a case and within a party’s control, they may have to be disclosed in civil proceedings.

Are conversations with AI chatbots covered by legal privilege?

Not by legal advice privilege, which applies to communications with lawyers. In 2013 the Supreme Court declined to extend it even to accountants giving legal advice. Whether litigation privilege could apply depends on when and why the material was created, so confidential legal advice should not be shared with consumer AI tools without taking advice first.

Should I use AI to help prepare for a legal dispute?

AI tools can help explain general legal concepts, but anything typed into them may be stored and could become disclosable. Keep the detailed facts of your case and your solicitor’s advice out of consumer chatbots, and take legal advice before relying on anything an AI tool produces.