AI Privilege Review and Privilege Logs

Privilege review asks whether a document or communication is protected from discovery under the governing law. Attorney-client privilege and work-product protection are distinct doctrines; a communication involving a lawyer is not automatically privileged, and merely labeling a record “privileged” does not establish protection. Context, purpose, participants, confidentiality, and jurisdiction can matter. AI and analytics can help find candidate items, group families, prioritize review, or identify patterns. A model output is a screening signal, not a legal determination. Qualified counsel should set criteria, review high-risk material, assess attachments and mixed business/legal content, and determine whether a privilege claim applies. Rule 26(b)(5)(A) requires an express claim and a description of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things that enables the other parties to assess the claim without revealing the protected information. The rule does not prescribe one universal field list for every privilege log; local rules, agreements, and case-specific orders may specify more. Rule 26(b)(5)(B) describes a procedure after privileged information is produced: the producing party must notify recipients, and recipients must return, sequester, or destroy the specified information pending resolution. Evidence Rule 502 addresses waiver and permits a federal court to order that a disclosure in the proceeding does not operate as a waiver. Such protections should be discussed with counsel and stated in an order where appropriate; they do not make every production error harmless. Preserve review records, coding decisions, and escalation paths consistent with applicable obligations.