5 Surprising Privilege Issues Encountered During Document Review and How to Address Them

One of the most surprising privilege issues I encountered during document review involved a thread of internal emails that looked purely operational—scheduling, product testing timelines, and vendor coordination—but buried within was a single reply where in-house counsel had been looped in and gave legal advice about potential liability exposure. The question, in effect, was how something that appeared routine could suddenly become privileged, and the answer is that privilege can attach to even a small portion of a larger communication if legal advice is being sought or given. In that case, opposing counsel argued the entire thread had been waived because it was shared broadly with non-legal staff. I had to isolate the specific communication, demonstrate that the legal input was clearly identifiable and separable, and push for a clawback under the protective order.

What made it tricky was that the legal advice wasn't labeled or obvious—it was a few lines in the middle of a long chain. I addressed it by tightening our review protocols: we trained reviewers to flag mixed-purpose communications and escalated anything involving counsel, even indirectly. Looking back, I would have implemented more advanced search filters and concept-based review earlier, rather than relying so heavily on manual tagging. The key lesson is that privilege isn't always about who is on the email—it's about the purpose of the communication, and missing that nuance can expose critical information.

The most surprising privilege issue involved an internal investigation timeline built after a fatal event. A safety manager prepared it, yet each entry reflected questions supplied by counsel and anticipated defenses rather than simple fact collection. The document looked like a neutral chronology, which made it particularly vulnerable during review because substance hid behind a straightforward format.
I handled it by documenting the timeline's origin, the legal purpose behind each revision, and the narrow audience that received it, then producing a careful log instead of a blanket claim. With hindsight, stronger intake protocols for incident response documents would have made the privilege basis cleaner and easier to defend.

The most surprising privilege issue was the Heppner decision, in which a court found AI-assisted work prepared by a client using a consumer platform was not protected by attorney-client privilege or work product because the platform was treated as a non-attorney and retained user data.

To address this, I moved sensitive document review away from consumer and standard enterprise tools and implemented Faradex’s single-tenant, volatile-memory processing so substantive content is not written to persistent storage. In hindsight I would have required attorney-directed AI workflows and formal firm policies sooner, prohibited unsupervised client use of external AI tools, and mandated tools that avoid disk persistence for privileged materials. Those steps make privileged handling an explicit part of routine practice and reduce the practical risk created by provider retention policies.

Surprisingly, what most people do not understand is that the privilege problems I come across are not complex legal matters. They are just miscommunications. Having practiced for years in the area of personal injury law and employment law, I have spent considerable time preparing documents for court proceedings and preparing for trials. One mistake people make is thinking that just because an email involves a lawyer, it is privileged.

The privilege may be lost or challenged if the legal advice is passed to those who do not need to be in the loop about that, if business and legal matters are intermingled, and if too many individuals are copied in an email trail. In employment cases, it becomes routine for me to see how the HR discussion, management decision, and legal matters get entangled together.

Had I been able to change anything, it would have been to take more time up front in dealing with a case to discuss how communications on a day-to-day basis could be used to start a dispute at a later date. This could mean that an email or message sent in haste could be used as evidence.

The process of document review will likely revive many forgotten discussions. The juries will not be privy to all the issues that lawyers discuss prior to trial, but such issues can affect the case proceedings. Good communication, confidentiality of legal advice, and proper documentation will solve many potential problems.