AI in Client Meetings: Helpful Assistant or Hidden Ethical Risk?
AI notetakers are everywhere. They appear as options for video conferencing and VoIP calls, and are even available in hardware, such as pens and lapel buttons. But should lawyers record conversations with clients and let AI transcribe and summarize the notes?
In September 2025, Hilary Bowman from Querious AI provided some food for thought in “AI in Virtual Meetings” during a CPM Learning Objectives webinar. Her presentation on the potential pitfalls of using AI tools in virtual meetings highlighted several key concerns. She noted that while AI can significantly enhance productivity, it introduces challenges related to data privacy, security, and ethical obligations.
A particular concern is the potential misuse of client data, as AI tools capture and process vast amounts of information during virtual meetings. Bowman emphasized the importance of understanding AI tool terms and conditions, particularly how these tools handle data deletion, privacy, and use in model training. She also discussed the legal implications of AI use, including the risk of breaching attorney-client confidentiality and the need for transparent communication with clients about AI involvement.
Bowman urged legal professionals to conduct thorough due diligence when adopting AI technologies and to adhere to ethical standards, such as competence and independent judgment. Her presentation underscored that while AI presents exciting opportunities, its use must be carefully managed to avoid professional and legal pitfalls.
Recently, lawyers writing from Smith Anderson, Jackson Lewis, the NCBarblog, an NYCBar ethics opinion, and the Boston Bar warned of serious risks, including privilege waiver, confidentiality breaches, retention concerns, consent issues, and hallucinations. You will want to read these articles and ethics opinions and consider your use of AI recording tools.
Nicole Black at The Daily Record NYC on the Ethics of Using AI Tools During Client Meetings offers some additional thoughts:
That being said, while I appreciate the New York City Bar’s consistent willingness to lead the way with ethics guidance about emerging technologies, I’m not convinced that the majority of this opinion was necessary.
Many of the issues that arise when lawyers use these AI meeting tools are not novel, and prior opinions offer advice that can be applied to this new technology. However, the client-side issue is more unique, and the guidance provided to ensure client and attorney interests are protected was necessary and helpful.
Another thing to consider, which some of these articles point out, is the repercussions when the client records the call.
Legal professionals are increasingly adopting AI notetakers to automate the transcription and summarization of meetings, yet these tools introduce ethical and legal risks. Lawyers must address consent requirements under varying state wiretap and privacy laws, as recording without all-party permission can lead to criminal or civil liability. Furthermore, using these technologies may jeopardize attorney-client privilege and confidentiality if data is stored on third-party servers or used to train external AI models.
To mitigate these threats, firms are advised to implement strict governance policies, verify the accuracy of AI-generated content, and ensure robust cybersecurity measures are in place. Ultimately, maintaining transparency with clients and exercising control over how these digital assistants access sensitive information is vital for professional compliance.