Photo of Lauren Hancock Miller

Lauren Hancock Miller

Subscribe to Lauren Hancock Miller's Posts

Lauren is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from Washington and Lee University School of Law, summa cum laude, where she served as managing editor of the Washington and Lee Law Review.

Contact:Read more about Lauren Hancock Miller

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more prevalent in day-to-day life and in the legal field, in particular, thorny questions arise regarding the implications of that use. One such question is whether exchanges with a publicly available generative AI platform in connection with pending litigation are protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In a matter of first impression nationwide, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York answered that question in the negative and required a defendant to provide the prosecution documents memorializing litigation-related communications with a generative AI platform.[1] Applying traditional principles governing the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, the court reasoned that the communications did not involve an attorney-client relationship, were not confidential, were not made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and did not reflect an attorney’s trial strategy.[2] The ruling will likely impact whether legal protections are afforded to AI communications, prompts, and output in both litigation and regulatory inquiries, including state attorneys general (AG) investigations.

On September 9, 2025, the Court of Appeal of the State of California upheld California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta’s trial-court victory against a business and its owner for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) based on allegations of the illegal sale of credit insurance, which largely targeted the business’s Latino immigrant customer base.

NEW YORK – In a remarkable display of unity, a bipartisan coalition of the attorneys general for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Troutman Pepper Locke and Dominion Energy’s petition for extraordinary relief in the matter of Yoon v. Collins, which continues the fight for veterans’ denied educational benefits.

Last week, in Tennessee v. EEOC, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision and reinstated a lawsuit by 17 states (led by the Tennessee and Arkansas attorneys general (AGs)), holding that these states have standing to sue the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its regulations implementing the Pregnant­ Workers Fairness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg. This decision deserves mention because the court seemingly made it easier to demonstrate standing by finding that the “realities facing” regulated parties can demonstrate a concrete injury even without a threat of enforcement.