For (1) it's so wild to me that if I pay a lawyer, they can run the same queries on these tools and they are protected by attorney-client privilege, but if I do it to help me prepare my defense, then the exact same queries would be subject to subpoena/discovery.

Does anyone know if there exists any OPSEC procedure for me to use third party tools like this for my own concerning legal questions that is both ethical and allows me to be confident that my interactions won't land in discovery documents?

▲

tjohns 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you are preparing for your own defense and don't have an attorney (you're acting pro se), your own LLM use would likely be protected under work product doctrine. The court would extend you some of the same protections an attorney would have, for the limited purposes of preparing your case.

This is a very narrow exemption, however.

(You would also want to make sure you're using a paid AI plan with contractually guaranteed privacy protections, otherwise it could be construed as third-party communications, which implicitly waives privilege.)

See: Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.

▲

palmotea 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Does anyone know if there exists any OPSEC procedure for me to use third party tools like this for my own concerning legal questions that is both ethical and allows me to be confident that my interactions won't land in discovery documents?

Isn't that a fundamental misunderstanding? Would "OPSEC" like that amount to destruction of evidence or contempt of court or something like that?

Like if all your incriminating documents are on some encrypted drive, it's not like that defeats discovery. You're supposed to decrypt them and hand them over.

▲

nerdsniper 10 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s absolutely part of my question. I’m not familiar enough with discovery to fully understand this.

	▲	bombcar 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Discovery in a criminal trial is more limited than in a civil trial. Your only real defense against discovery is to not have said it, or to have destroyed all records of it before the hint of discovery wafted on the wind.

▲

JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> if I do it to help me prepare my defense, then the exact same queries would be subject to subpoena/discovery

We need a law where someone can clearly designate a chat privileged, with severe consequences for mis-use.

▲

tptacek 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wouldn't that same logic exclude evidence from Google searches, like "how to get away with murder"?

	▲	7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	nerdsniper 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes? Which makes it feel like the answer is just “No.” Unless you use Mullvad, TailsOS, and don’t log into the service. But I’m not sure if that’s “ethical” for Google/DDG searches and it’s not really possible for Claude/Kagi. I would assume that simply using a “secret” account isn't a magic way to avoid discovery either.

▲

cucumber3732842 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>For (1) it's so wild to me that if I pay a lawyer, they can run the same queries on these tools and they are protected by attorney-client privilege, but if I do it to help me prepare my defense, then the exact same queries would be subject to subpoena/discovery.

How's this any different than any professional license? You're basically paying for preferential treatment from the state in a given subject area.

	▲	lmm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> How's this any different than any professional license? You're basically paying for preferential treatment from the state in a given subject area. Because it's got nothing to do with the professional part? Licensing should affect their practice of law, sure, but it shouldn't grant random other privileges.

▲

AndrewKemendo 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Self host your own LLM

▲

singleshot_ 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why do you think this would be less discoverable than hosting your own email server?

	▲	QuadmasterXLII 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you use a stateless client (like just rawdogging cli llama.cpp) there’s nothing to discover. Setting a program with an option to have logs to not do that could conceivably get you in trouble but using a widely used program that never had logs seems like it has to be fine. Maybe they could nail you for googling “which local llm approach generates logs?” also, don’t get nailed by your bash history!
	▲	kevin42 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Because you don't keep logs.
	▲	AndrewKemendo 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because nobody would know about it unless you told them for some reason

▲

nvr219 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You’d need to hand that mac mini over if subpoenaed

	▲	AndrewKemendo 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Can’t hand over something that doesn’t exist if it’s running in a VM container and gets destroyed every 12 hours