Generative AI in Litigation: Privilege, Work Product, and Protective Orders

Jason Loring
Jason Loring
Jones Walker LLP

Jason Loring is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group at Jones Walker and a member of the firm's commercial transactions team, where he co-leads the firm's Privacy, Data Strategy, and Artificial Intelligence team from the Atlanta office.

David A. Sergenian
David A. Sergenian
Sergenian Law LLP

David A. Sergenian is the Founder of Sergenian Law, P.C., based in Santa Monica, California. He concentrates his practice in copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, partnership and startup disputes, appellate practice, and general commercial litigation, and also has extensive experience in patent law, securities litigation, entertainment litigation, and employment actions.

Re-Broadcast: July 31, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

A represented client pastes case facts into a consumer AI tool, and the privilege you spent months protecting is gone before you hear about it. Meanwhile, the prompts and outputs your own team generates are landing in discovery requests, and courts are only beginning to decide whether any of it is shielded.

The doctrine is splitting in real time: Warner v. Gilbarco, the Tremblay/Concord Music line, and Morgan v. V2X point in different directions on whether AI inputs and outputs qualify as work product. Every litigator handling federal civil cases is already exposed, and a protective order template that predates generative AI leaves prompt logs, training-data flows, and tool identity unaddressed.

This program works through Rule 26(b)(3) and Hickman v. Taylor as applied to AI materials, the opinion-versus-fact work product line, the Kovel doctrine's limits at intake, and model protective order language built for AI. You leave able to draft AI-specific protective orders, preserve discoverable prompts, and close the exposure gap before privilege is waived.

What Will You Learn

Attorneys will learn how product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, and discovery obligations apply to generative AI prompts, outputs, and platform data in federal civil litigation.

What Will You Gain

Attorneys will gain actionable skills to advise clients on platform selection, draft AI-specific protective orders, preserve discoverable materials, and close the represented-client exposure gap before privilege is destroyed.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Platform selection
    Advise clients on enterprise versus consumer AI deployment choices before privilege risks arise.
  • Material preservation
    Preserve discoverable AI prompts, outputs, and platform data under federal discovery obligations.
  • Exposure gap
    Close the represented-client exposure gap before independent consumer-AI use destroys attorney-client privilege.
  • Federal discovery
    Apply federal civil discovery practice to rapidly evolving generative AI prompts and outputs.
  • Tool identity
    Address work product protection questions tied to AI tool identity and platform data.
  • Intake protocols
    Implement intake procedures addressing the Kovel doctrine's consumer-AI limits for represented clients.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: July 31, 2026

  • 2:00 pm – 4:10 pm Eastern
  • 1:00 pm – 3:10 pm Central
  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Mountain
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Jason Loring, Partner, Member | Jones Walker LLP

Jason Loring is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group at Jones Walker and a member of the firm’s commercial transactions team, where he co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data Strategy, and Artificial Intelligence team from the Atlanta office. He advises clients on data privacy and protection, cybersecurity, data governance, breach response, data strategy, and artificial intelligence and machine learning, as well as strategic technology transactions and related commercial matters. Jason represents publicly traded corporations, privately held companies, government entities, not-for-profits, and other enterprises, and provides forward-thinking counsel on global data privacy laws including the EU and UK GDPR, HIPAA, GLBA, COPPA, the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and state privacy statutes such as the CCPA, CPRA, and BIPA.

  • Education & Credentials

Jason earned his JD from Wake Forest University School of Law in 2006, where he served on the editorial staff of the Wake Forest Law Review, and holds a BA in History from the College of Charleston, conferred in 2003. He is admitted to the State Bar of Georgia. He holds the Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM) and Certified Information Privacy Professional, United States (CIPP/US) certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).

  • Recognition & Leadership

The International Association of Privacy Professionals has bestowed on Jason the prestigious honor of being a Fellow of Information Privacy (FIP). He co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data Strategy, and Artificial Intelligence team and serves on the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Bar Association’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Section, on the Executive Committee of the State Bar of Georgia’s Privacy & Technology Law Section, and as a Senior Advisor to the Atlanta CofC Club.

  • Professional Involvement

Jason is a member of the IAPP, the Atlanta Bar Association’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Section (Board of Directors), the State Bar of Georgia’s Privacy & Technology Law Section (Executive Committee), and the State Bar of Georgia’s Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology. He is an active author and speaker, with publications in Bloomberg Law, Law360, and the Chambers Global Practice Guide, and speaking engagements at the Life Sciences AI Summit, IAPP KnowledgeNet, the State Bar of Georgia Privacy & Technology Law Forum, and the Practising Law Institute’s Annual Institute on Privacy and Cybersecurity Law.

  • Experience

Jason began his career in private practice in Atlanta before holding senior leadership positions at several market-leading global providers of strategic business consulting, financial services, enterprise data, and business-process solutions. Prior to joining Jones Walker, he served as senior vice president, deputy chief legal officer, and global head of privacy and data protection for Vialto Partners. He previously served as chief privacy and security counsel, Americas, for EY; as assistant general counsel, corporate services, for E*TRADE Financial Corporation; and as counsel, global enterprise solutions, for ADP.

 

David A. Sergenian, Founder | Sergenian Law LLP

David A. Sergenian is the Founder of Sergenian Law, P.C., based in Santa Monica, California. He concentrates his practice in copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, partnership and startup disputes, appellate practice, and general commercial litigation, and also has extensive experience in patent law, securities litigation, entertainment litigation, and employment actions. He has represented clients on both sides of the “v.”—including numerous Fortune 500 companies—in litigations, trials, arbitrations, and alternative dispute resolutions.

  • Education & Credentials

David earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2003. He also holds an M.A. in Philosophy & Literature from New York University, conferred in 2000, and a B.A. in Liberal Arts from New School University, conferred in 1999. He is admitted to the California State Bar and to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

  • Recognition & Leadership

David has been recognized as a Super Lawyer in Southern California for General Litigation from 2021 through 2026. He is the Founder of Sergenian Law, P.C., and serves as outside General Counsel to The French Conservatory of Music.

  • Professional Involvement

David serves as outside General Counsel to The French Conservatory of Music. His representative matters include serving Fortune 500 companies, film production companies and major studios, investment management firms, prominent real estate developers, broadcasters, utility companies, internet startups, whistleblowers in securities fraud disputes, television production companies, and well-known individual clients in jury trials, bench trials, appellate matters, arbitrations, and mediations.

  • Experience

David is the Founder of Sergenian Law, P.C. in Santa Monica, California, where his practice focuses on copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, partnership and startup disputes, appellate practice, and general commercial litigation, with additional experience in patent law, securities litigation, entertainment litigation, and employment actions. Before founding Sergenian Law, he practiced at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and at Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro. Before law school, he worked as a film and video editor in feature films, documentaries, and television. His representative matters span IP disputes, patent litigation, trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty trials, real estate and partnership disputes, securities fraud, employment claims, and entertainment matters, with notable results including defense verdicts affirmed on appeal, a complete defense judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and favorable settlements for Fortune 500 broadcasters, investment management firms, real estate developers, utility companies, and prominent individual clients.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – The Warner, Tremblay, and Morgan Split | 2:00pm – 3:00pm

Analyze the emerging doctrinal divide across Warner v. Gilbarco, the Tremblay/Concord Music line, and Morgan v. V2X. Develop arguments for and against work product protection of AI inputs and outputs in your jurisdiction.

BREAK | 3:00pm – 3:10pm

SESSION 2 – Work Product for AI Prompts and Outputs | 3:00pm – 4:10pm

Examine how Rule 26(b)(3) and Hickman v. Taylor apply to AI prompts, outputs, and platform metadata. Learn to identify which AI-generated materials qualify as opinion versus fact work product and preserve protection during discovery.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved for CLE Credits
2.5 General

Georgia

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Indiana

Approved For On-Demand Credits
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Oklahoma

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Oregon

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Preview
More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
The AI Skills Every Attorney Needs: Think, Prompt, Win
The AI Skills Every Attorney Needs: Think, Prompt, Win Thu, July 30, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay