The Dangers of Employers Using AI Research Tools as to Discovery Requests from Plaintiffs

A second “bombshell” affecting HR pertaining to AI is a federal court ruling in New York, that a defendant’s use of AI in researching and planning the defense was not subject to the attorney-client or work product defense, and thus was disclosable to the other side in litigation.  The idea was that the defendant was not getting advice from an attorney, as AI is not an attorney.  Consider the case of an HR director that does his or her own research on certain legal points or how to handle certain personnel situations.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys are already reacting to the New York federal district court ruling by routinely requesting AI inquiries performed related to their cases.  Some embarrassing facts could be revealed where the HR director disclosed as part of the AI research process various potential legal defenses or weak points in the defense.

The above situation is a scary one to this writer.  There is the potential of elements not only disclosing important facts and legal theories to the opposition, but the potential embarrassment to the employer of a plaintiff’s attorney telling a jury that this employer has turned over its decision-making process to a “black box” that the employer knows little or nothing about.  Who knows how the jury will react to this type of argument.  This is why so many commentators suggest that employers should have human review of significant employment-related decisions, and not rely totally on AI.

This article is part of our May 2026 Newsletter. 

View the newsletter online

Download the newsletter as a PDF