Chatbot Use At Work And Discovery Risk

Chatbot Use At Work And Discovery Risk

Public AI tools are now part of daily business work. Employees use them to draft emails, summarize meetings, and build policies. The law treats those prompts and outputs as business records when they relate to company operations. In litigation, those records can be requested, collected, and produced. New Jersey discovery rules are broad. Parties may obtain any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense that is proportional to the needs of the case. That scope reaches chatbot prompts, transcripts, screenshots, exports, and any documents that incorporate chatbot text. The practical lesson is simple. Treat workplace chatbot use as discoverable and plan for it before a dispute starts.

Privilege And Work Product Concerns

Attorney-client privilege in New Jersey protects confidential communications between attorney and client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. A public chatbot is a third party and is not part of the client–lawyer relationship. Sharing legal questions or draft legal analysis with a public chatbot risks waiver. Work product protection covers materials prepared in reasonable anticipation of litigation by or for a party or counsel. Posting strategy or draft testimony concepts into a public tool can undermine that protection. If counsel decides to use AI within a legal workflow, it should occur under counsel’s direction, with a written engagement that binds the provider to confidentiality, and with access limited to the legal team. Anything else invites fights over waiver that are avoidable.

Under New Jersey Court Rule 4:10-2(a), parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense that is proportional to the needs of the case. The Rule’s language mirrors Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), both of which define ESI to include data of any kind stored electronically. Courts consistently interpret these provisions broadly to encompass digital records, emails, and other forms of business communication that reflect operational activities.

Ownership, Devices, And Monitoring

Most employers own the work product created by employees during their jobs. That ownership claim extends to chat prompts and outputs created on company time or with company systems. Handbooks and device policies determine the strength of that claim. Clear language reserving rights to monitor, collect, and review data on company devices allows counsel to gather chatbot records during an internal review or litigation hold. Ambiguous or outdated policies create disputes over access and privacy that slow collection and raise costs.

Vendor Terms, Confidentiality, And Data Use

Public chatbot terms often permit providers to retain content and to use it to improve services. That is not compatible with confidential business data, trade secrets, or regulated personal information. If the business needs AI tools, select enterprise offerings that give written confidentiality, data segregation, content deletion on demand, and no training on customer data. A data processing agreement and information security addendum should state storage location, retention, breach notice timing, subprocessors, and audit rights. Without these terms, your own prompts can reappear in unexpected places and your adversary can argue that secrecy has been lost.

Recordkeeping And Retention

Discovery turns on what exists and what was preserved. Define where chat records are stored and how long they are retained. If the platform allows history, decide whether to disable it for certain users or to retain it under your normal retention schedule. If employees paste chatbot text into email or documents, those files already fall within existing retention. Train users to export relevant conversations to approved repositories when a matter is sensitive or connected to a business decision. Unmanaged personal accounts and screenshots scattered across phones create later collection failures and sanctions risk.

Litigation Holds And Preservation

When litigation is filed or reasonably anticipated, preservation duties attach. A litigation hold should instruct custodians to preserve prompts, outputs, conversation IDs, exports, screenshots, and any documents that include chatbot-generated text. If the platform auto-deletes histories, suspend that setting for relevant users. Preserve mobile images and chats that show how chatbot text was used. In New Jersey practice, courts expect prompt and documented preservation. Failure can lead to adverse inferences, fee shifting, or other sanctions.

Because AI tools are used to generate or summarize business communications, their prompts, transcripts, or outputs are functionally equivalent to emails, drafts, or policy documents created in the course of business. These fall within the definition of ESI and thus are discoverable when relevant. The Electronic Discovery Protocol and the ESI Document Production Protocol explicitly include word-processing files, emails, and digital text generated in the course of business operations as discoverable documents. Further, in In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, the court acknowledged the discoverability of AI-generated data selection documentation and algorithmic outputs where relevant to claims or defenses, confirming that production obligations extend to such nontraditional data types.

Proportional Discovery And Protective Orders

New Jersey courts balance relevance and burden. If an opponent demands every chatbot interaction by every employee for years, seek a protective order. Narrow the scope by custodian, timeframe, subject, and project. Offer staged production that starts with key custodians and high value topics. Seek confidentiality protections for trade secrets and personal data. These tools manage how nonprivileged information is exchanged. They do not create privilege where none exists.

Employment Policies And Training

Adopt an AI use policy that addresses approved tools, prohibited inputs, ownership, confidentiality, retention, and preservation. Tie that policy to existing confidentiality, IT, and records schedules so guidance is consistent. Train managers and staff on concrete examples. Do not input customer lists, pricing models, source code, medical or financial data, or internal investigations. Do not ask a public chatbot to rewrite legal advice, witness statements, or settlement strategy. Require disclosure when chatbot text is used in a final work product so the company can verify accuracy and preserve the underlying prompt if needed.

Regulated And Contractual Data

Many contracts prohibit disclosure of a counterparty’s confidential information to third parties without consent. Feeding that data into a public chatbot can breach the agreement and trigger indemnity exposure. Regulated data such as health, education, and financial information carries additional statutory duties that do not pause because a tool is convenient. Map your data categories and block uploads by policy and by technical control where possible. Written rules are not enough if the system allows easy misuse.

Incident Response And Audits

Treat AI misuse as a compliance incident. Investigate, document findings, and remediate. Pull platform logs, prompts, and outputs. Notify legal, IT, and affected business units. If contractual or statutory notice duties apply, meet them on time. Periodically audit usage by role and by team. Confirm that enterprise settings match policy and that vendor terms have not drifted. These steps keep discovery focused and reduce surprises when you must certify your search efforts to a court.

Practical Conclusion

Business use of chatbots is discoverable and often decisive in litigation. Protect privilege by keeping legal analysis out of public tools. Select enterprise AI with real confidentiality and deletion rights. Clarify ownership and access in your policies. Control inputs, train users, and retain records in known locations. Issue targeted litigation holds and seek protective orders when requests are overbroad. This approach reduces risk, streamlines discovery, and preserves your leverage when disputes arise.

For more information about your legal rights or to schedule a consultation, please contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at www.pjlesq.com, call 201-904-2211, or email info@pjlesq.com.

Contact us today to discuss your business or legal matter. Put our 20+ years of legal experience to work for you.

---

For detailed insights and legal assistance on topics discussed in this post, including litigation, contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at our Bergen County Office. We're here to answer your questions and provide legal advice. Contact us at (201) 904-2211 or email us at  info@pjlesq.com.

Interested in More Legal Insights?

Explore our range of resources on business and legal matters. Subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel for a wealth of information covering various business and legal topics. For specific inquiries or to discuss your legal matter with an attorney from our team, please email me directly at pl@pjlesq.com or call at (201) 904-2211. Your questions are important to us, and we look forward to providing the answers you need.

About Peter J. Lamont, Esq.

Peter J. Lamont is a nationally recognized attorney with significant experience in business, contract, litigation, and real estate law. With over two decades of legal practice, he has represented a wide array of businesses, including large international corporations. Peter is known for his practical legal and business advice, prioritizing efficient and cost-effective solutions for his clients.

Peter has an Avvo 10.0 Rating and has been acknowledged as one of America's Most Honored Lawyers since 2011. 201 Magazine and Lawyers of Distinction have also recognized him for being one of the top business and litigation attorneys in New Jersey. His commitment to his clients and the legal community is further evidenced by his active role as a speaker, lecturer, and published author in various legal and business publications.

As the founder of the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, Peter brings his Wall Street experience and client-focused approach to New Jersey, offering personalized legal services that align with each client's unique needs and goals​.

---

DISCLAIMERS: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.

As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one, even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. This post will also focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey, you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state, as certain rules differ in other states.

Disclaimer: Recognition by Legal Awards

The legal awards and recognitions mentioned above do not constitute an endorsement or guarantee of future performance. These honors reflect an attorney's past achievements and should not be considered as predictors of future results. They are not intended to compare one lawyer's services with those of other lawyers. The process for selecting an attorney for these awards can vary and may not include a review of the lawyer's competence in specific areas of practice. Potential clients should perform their own evaluation when seeking legal representation. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.