Smoking Is Cool

by eugenestrupinsky • February 17, 2021

“Smoking Is Cool”


On Behalf of  | Feb 17, 2021 | Firm News |



Lung Cancer Patient Sues Tobacco Company for Fraud


Patricia Rickman began smoking in 1986, at just twelve (12) years old. Now, facing near-death from lung cancer, Rickman has sued R.J. Reynolds for fraud. Rickman hopes to prove that the tobacco industry’s successful efforts to create doubts surrounding the dangers of cigarettes caused her addiction.


On Thursday, the Court heard expert testimony from Stanford history professor, Robert Proctor regarding RJR’s actions in the 1980s and 1990s. Proctor had a clear message – RJR supplemented its denial of smoking’s dangers with one message to teens: “Smoking is cool.”

Citing the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Proctor testified that RJR’s 1988 “Joe Camel” campaign increased smoking in middle school and high school kids. RJR’s 1990 strategy documents revealed an effort to target 18-34 adult smokers, “particularly those with an irreverent, less serious mindset.” In 1997, RJR ultimately pulled that campaign because it targeted the youth.


Proctor testified that RJR never stopped delivering its messaging – postulating doubts as to the legitimacy of the causal link between smoking and cancer. For example, a 1984 ad contained the words, “Can we have an open debate about smoking?” This ad encompasses a page of texts, sowing seeds of doubt as to scientific findings, asking its buyers to “keep an open mind.”



On cross-examination, a lawyer for RJR nudged Proctor into admitting that Americans already knew the harm of cigarettes. Proctor responded that unfortunately, that not enough people knew of such dangers.


Proctor ended his testimony with the following sentiment, “I think that’s a good thing. Exposing that duplicity, that fraud, was important in all kinds of public health victories.”


To follow this case more closely: Rickman v. R.J. Reynolds, case number 19CV28636, in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon.

By Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. March 27, 2026
Learn how to begin filing for bankruptcy with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY. Get professional legal guidance for your financial future.
By Eugene Strupinsky March 19, 2026
Explore when businesses in Brooklyn and New York, NY should choose mediation or litigation with guidance from Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., experienced in dispute resolution.
By Eugene Strupinsky March 16, 2026
Discover what bankruptcy can and cannot do for your finances. Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY provides tailored legal guidance for your situation.
By Eugene Strupinsky March 12, 2026
Learn about the legal complexities of co-op and condo transfers in NYC with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., serving Brooklyn and New York, NY. Contact us for legal advice.
By Kayla Gaisi March 10, 2026
As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into our daily lives, it continues to raise legal questions that courts can no longer ignore. This month, the question of whether communications between criminal defendants and public AI are protected from government inspection was answered by Judge Jed Rakoff. That answer was an unequivocal 'no.' In the case at hand, defendant Bradely Heppner was charged with fraud and arrested a month later, in November 2025. When the FBI executed a search warrant at his home, they seized documents containing communications between him and the public AI platform Claude AI. According to Heppner's counsel, these communications reflected a defense strategy Heppner had generated in anticipation of potential indictment. Heppner asserted that these documents were either protected under attorney-client privilege or by the work product doctrine, arguing that he had used Claude for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and had shared these outputs with his attorneys. However, Judge Rakoff rejected both arguments. Attorney-client privilege applies only to communications between a client and a professional who owes them fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline. It is a socially valuable human relationship. Regardless of how advanced an AI systems is, it cannot meet this definition. Claude is not a human attorney and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its users, so communications with it cannot qualify for attorney-client privilege. Aside from this, Rakoff listed other reasons why Heppner's communications with Claude are not considered confidential. Firstly, Claude is a public AI system whose privacy policy discloses that communications can be shared with third parties including "governmental regulatory authorities." Secondly, as his counsel admitted, Heppner sought legal advice from Claude on his own volition, not at their direction. Even if Heppner received legal advice and later shared that with his counsel, that does not render the initially unprivileged communication privileged. The related work product doctrine fared no better for Heppner. This doctrine protects materials prepared by attorneys in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing parties. Here, the AI-generated documents were not prepared by or at the behest of counsel and did not reflect counsel's strategy. Thus, they fell outside the scope of the doctrine. Judge Rakoff's ruling matters because it maintains the narrowness of evidentiary privileges that is necessary for protecting the judicial system's truth-seeking function. Extending privilege to communications with public AI systems could create a dangerous loophoole, one where parties could shield discoverable information by filtering it through a chatbot. But given Rakoff's ruling, the main takeaway here is that attorneys should explicitly advise their clients not to share personal or legal information with public AI systems. Despite how routine it has now become for many to ask public AI personal questions, these communications are not confidential, and may ultimately be used as evidence in court. 
By Eugene Strupinsky February 27, 2026
Learn about costly business contract clauses and how Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn, New York, ensures your agreements protect your interests.
By Eugene Strupinsky February 25, 2026
Navigate blended family estate planning with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY. Learn key strategies tailored to your family’s needs.
By Eugene Strupinsky February 20, 2026
Learn about employee rights and workplace retaliation in New York from Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., Brooklyn and New York, NY. Legal guidance you can rely on.
By Eugene Strupinsky February 11, 2026
Discover what to do if you have power of attorney over a loved one with legal insights from Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY.
By Eugene Strupinsky January 29, 2026
Discover which 5 estate planning documents you should update after major life changes. Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C.