The use of AI notetakers has become increasingly common in workplace settings and meetings. AI Notetakers are able to record conversations, generate transcripts, summarize discussions, and extract action items without anyone having to take notes manually.
However, for law firms, that convenience also comes with an important question: What happens to confidential information once an AI tool is invited into the conversation?
Before introducing an AI notetaker into meetings with clients, legal professionals should understand where the data is transmitted, its retention period, who has permission to access the data, and if the content could be used for AI model training.
The Rise of AI Notetakers in the Workplace
Recording meetings is a common practice, but AI has introduced new possibilities for how those recorded meetings can be used after a meeting has concluded.
Now AI notetakers can analyze the recording of the meeting and prepare different reports such as summaries of the conversation, develop transcripts, and create action lists. Some services may even keep this information outside of an organization’s network. For attorneys discussing confidential information with clients, this may create concerns that do not exist in an ordinary workplace meeting.
Is It Legal to Record a Work Meeting?
Whether or not a workplace meeting can legally be recorded depends on applicable recording laws and the location of the people participating in the conversation.
Certain states permit the recording of a conversation as long as one person gives consent, while others require consent from all participants of the meeting. However, this can create complications when participants of the meeting are in different states.
Before using AI notetakers, employers and lawyers should understand which laws apply and where consent is required. The legality is not all that needs to be considered by lawyers. In addition to legality, lawyers must think about whether or not the conversation should be recorded in the first place.
Why Lawyers Are Watching This Trend Closely
Lawyers must ensure that they continue to protect their clients’ confidentiality and the information being discussed. The use of any new technology does not change this requirement.
If lawyers decide to use an AI notetaker during their meetings, they should then also understand the provider’s methods for safeguarding that information.
Lawyers should determine where meeting data is stored, how long it is stored for, whether it is possible for third parties to access it, and whether the provider uses the same information to improve their AI systems.
The Heppner Wake-Up Call: What a Federal Court Just Ruled About AI and Privilege
A recent case in federal court illustrates one of the possible consequences when legal and confidential information is put into an AI platform.
What Happened in United States v. Heppner
In United States v. Heppner, a criminal defendant used Claude, which is a generative AI platform, to create documents that were related to his defense. He entered the information he had received from his attorneys and later shared AI-generated reports with his legal team.
When the government sought those materials, his attorneys argued that they should be protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.
Under the circumstances of the case, the court disagreed. This was due to several factors, including the defendant’s decision to use a public AI platform on his own, as opposed to generating the documents based on instructions by his attorneys.
The case highlights an important concern for attorneys and clients alike: sharing confidential legal information with an outside AI platform can create questions about whether that information remains protected.
Why the Ruling Is Not a Blanket Ban on AI
The Heppner ruling does not mean that the use of AI automatically results in a violation of attorney-client privilege. This ruling was based on the specific facts of the case, including how the defendant used the AI platform as well as his relationship with his attorneys.
The key lesson of this case is that lawyers and their clients must be careful about the information they disclose to AI systems.
What’s Actually at Risk When Privilege Is Waived
Attorney-client privilege refers to the protection of communications and information that is shared between an attorney and client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
Confidentiality is an integral part of the privilege.
Whenever confidential information is disclosed to a third party, questions can arise about whether the privilege still applies. With the technology used today, a third party may not necessarily refer to another person; it could refer to some technological platform.
Law firms must consider not only who has access to confidential information but also the technologies and devices that may be used to process or store it.
Where Does Your Meeting Data Actually Go?
This is one of the most important questions that all lawyers need to address when using an AI notetaking solution.
When a meeting concludes, this does not mean the recording disappears. Depending on the online platform, the data from the meeting could have an audio recording, transcript, summary, or action item list available.
Law firms must know where the material is stored, who can reach it, and when it will be removed from the company archives.
Law firms should also consider whether they actually need to create and retain these records. Having a permanent transcript of all communications with clients could bring about more significant confidentiality, security, and record-keeping issues than if the conversation had never been recorded.
Is Your AI Notetaker Training on Your Client’s Data?
This is where law firms need to pay particularly close attention.
A main concern regarding AI notetakers is not whether the device is capable of recording meetings, but whether sensitive data could end up in the wrong place or be reused by the AI provider.
Before implementing AI notetaking solutions, law firms should pay attention to the following:
- Whether meeting recordings or transcripts can be used to train AI models
- Whether the provider offers a no-training commitment
- How long recordings, transcripts, and other data are retained
- Whether a zero-retention option is available
- Who can access stored information
- Whether data is shared with other providers or subprocessors
- Whether the firm’s agreement provides meaningful confidentiality and security protections
If a provider claims that customer data will not be used for AI training, law firms should ensure that those protections actually apply to client data.
Different terms such as “default privacy option”, “optional privacy option”, or “contractual agreement” may mean different things.
Could These Recordings Be Used as Evidence?
Another concern worth mentioning is the potential implications of workplace meetings on legal disputes.
While a recording, transcript, or AI-generated meeting summary might be useful for litigation, its admissibility in court will depend upon the circumstances of the recording along with other factors.
The existence of a transcript created by an AI tool raises concerns about the accuracy of a provided record of the meeting. AI tools may fall short when it comes to identifying the speaker, recognizing words, or accurately capturing the content of the meeting.
Discoverability and Admissibility Basics
It is also important to distinguish between discoverable evidence and admissible evidence in the court of law.
Even though materials are disclosed during the discovery phase, that does not necessarily mean that those materials will be admitted as evidence in a trial.
For employers, employees, and law firms, this comes as yet another point to keep in mind as they engage in recording meetings automatically with the help of modern technologies.
Talk to an Employment Attorney If You Are Already in a Dispute
If you do have a recording or an AI-generated transcript that has some relevance to an employment dispute, be sure not to erase, change, or distribute it without being aware of your legal duties.
Consult an employment lawyer who can help you determine how the recording was created, whether the recording laws are applicable, whether it has to be kept, and how it is connected with discrimination,retaliation, whistleblowing, or another type of workplace issue.
A Practical Checklist for Vetting AI Notetakers
Although AI notetakers can be a beneficial business tool, organizations should carefully evaluate them before using recording technology in confidential meetings.
Before settling on a platform, one must ask:
- Does the provider use customer data to train or improve its AI?
- Can AI training be turned off or contractually prohibited?
- Where is meeting data stored?
- How long is it retained?
- Can recordings and transcripts be permanently deleted?
- Who has access to the information?
- Does the provider use third-party subprocessors?
- What security measures protect the information?
- Does the firm’s agreement address confidentiality and data use?
- Do we actually need to record this meeting?
The objective here is not to avoid using AI. It is about ensuring that the benefit brought by the AI notetakers does not come at the expenses of confidentiality.
When It is Time to Bring in Legal Counsel
The use of AI tools has now become increasingly more in business. That makes it essential to set up policies in advance.
If the company makes use of AI notetakers or any other AI-based software that processes data, familiarize yourself with how this information is treated and what happens to it.
Hamilton Law is ready to assist companies with developing technological policies, confidentiality issues, and navigating the legal aspects of AI usage. If you have any questions regarding the use of AI notetakers, corporate recordings, or confidentiality enforcement, contact Hamilton Law for advice.