In back-to-back decisions on June 3 and June 4, 2026, courts in Texas and New York ruled that AI-generated prompts and outputs created during litigation preparation qualify as protected work product. The decisions mark the first significant judicial endorsements of the idea that using AI tools doesn’t automatically open your legal strategy to opposing counsel.
Two states, two days, one message
The Texas Business Court got there first. In Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC, the court ruled on June 3 that ChatGPT conversations generated by a party principal are safeguarded as protected work product. The key reasoning: engaging an AI tool doesn’t inherently waive the protections that would apply if an attorney had done the same analysis with a legal pad and a highlighter.
One day later, the New York Supreme Court reached a strikingly similar conclusion in Assini v. Hayward. The court quashed subpoenas that targeted a litigant’s AI prompts and outputs, grounding its decision in work-product protections under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, commonly known as CPLR.
The Connecticut counterpoint
