Today we release the second MyShingle Ethics Opinion 2026-2, The One With the Ethics of AI Notetakers for Attorney-Client Conversations. You can access it in full below or download the PDF here.
MyShingle Ethics Opinion 2026-2
The One With the Ethics of AI Notetakers for Attorney-Client Conversations.
Issued July 11, 2026 · MyShingle.com
Background
Advances in AI-powered transcription combined with the post-pandemic surge in online meetings have made it easier than ever for lawyers to record and document attorney-client communications. The appeal is obvious. Recording a client meeting lets the lawyer focus on the client instead of a legal pad, and a transcript catches details that even a good notetaker misses, sparing the office costly and embarrassing follow-up calls. Clients benefit too. A transcript memorializes the advice given, serves as a reference the client can consult later (how the divorce process works, what the incorporation steps are), and fosters transparency and trust. Transcripts also protect the firm, cutting down on after-the-fact “I said, you said” disputes and letting lawyers monitor whether support staff are dispensing legal advice, a concern the ABA addressed in Formal Opinion 506 (2023).
But the same features that make AI notetakers attractive raise questions about consent, confidentiality, and competence. This opinion addresses the question: May a lawyer use AI tools to record, transcribe, and summarize conversations with clients consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct, and if so, under what conditions?
A lawyer may use AI notetaking tools to record, transcribe, and summarize client conversations but only with disclosure to the client and, in most circumstances, the client’s consent. Undisclosed recording is deceptive under Rule 8.4 even in one-party-consent states, and at least one regulator has now said so expressly. Before turning the tool on, the lawyer must understand how it handles data, such as where recordings are stored, whether the vendor trains on them, and whether deleted content is actually deleted. Lawyers must also steer clear of consumer-grade tools that train on client data. Rule 1.6 requires prudent use even of a vetted tool: keep highly sensitive details out of recordings, download transcripts to firm storage, and delete them from the vendor platform promptly. Lawyers must review AI-generated transcripts and summaries for accuracy before relying on them, and must comply with state biometric privacy laws now on the books in Illinois, Texas, Washington, and several other jurisdictions that may require informed written consent before a client’s voice is recorded.
Rules discussed: ABA Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 8.4
Introduction
Guidance on recording clients long predates AI. ABA Formal Opinion 01-422 (2001) concluded that a lawyer may not record conversations in violation of law in an all-party-consent jurisdiction, nor falsely deny that a recording is being made but the ABA committee divided on whether recording a client without the client’s knowledge is unethical, calling it merely “inadvisable.” State authorities split the same way: at least eighteen states have concluded or implied that recording client conversations without permission is not unethical, while at least nine have held or implied that it is unethical even where legal. (Justia maintains a 50-state survey of state recording-consent laws.) One commentator argues that secret client recordings are inherently deceitful and violate Rule 8.4 outright. J. Bries, Legal Ethics of Secret Client Recordings, 24 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 55 (2020).
Although only a small percentage of attorneys considered recording clients back in the day of the cassette tape recording, transcription is gaining traction in the AI era. AI notetakers are much easier to use than predecessor hardware and boast added capabilities to join meetings automatically, transcribe verbatim, generate summaries, store content on vendor clouds, and — depending on the terms of service — to use recordings to train models. The first regulator to confront these tools directly is the New York City Bar, whose Formal Opinion 2025-6 concludes that lawyers must notify clients and obtain consent before recording with AI-enabled tools, and that undisclosed recording is deceptive under Rule 8.4 and inconsistent with the duty of loyalty even if only a summary is ultimately retained because clients speak differently when a verbatim record is being made.
This opinion synthesizes that guidance for the solo and small firm lawyer, who evaluates vendors personally, signs the engagement letter personally, and bears the malpractice risk personally.
Discussion
Competence (Rule 1.1)
Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to understand “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology,” a duty roughly forty states have adopted. For AI notetakers, competence means the lawyer can answer basic questions about the tool before using it with clients: Where are recordings stored? Who can access them? Does the vendor use recordings or transcripts to train its models? What are the default recording settings? Does deletion actually remove the data? NYC Formal Opinion 2025-6 makes these inquiries part of the competence duty itself.
Answering them requires reading the AI notetaking platform terms of service. Although AI can produce a first-pass summary of the terms, the lawyer remains responsible for the conclusions. AI notetaking tools built for lawyers generally include adequate safeguards, but “built for lawyers” is marketing, not a warranty; lawyers must verify the salesteam’s claims. Reject any platform that trains on the entirety of your recordings, retains content after you delete it, or fails to take reasonable steps to protect confidentiality. Where the terms leave doubt, ask the vendor directly, and consider private-cloud options where offered. MyShingle’s review of the Fireflies.AI terms of service and its data-protection guide illustrates the exercise: the terms commit to reasonable privacy and security measures and permit complete deletion, with data used only in limited, anonymized form to improve transcription. This satisfies confidentiality requirements for most routine client communications, though mileage varies with the sensitivity of the matter.
Competence also means reviewing the output. AI transcripts and summaries contain errors, and a verbatim record can transform informal, “off the cuff” advice into something that reads like a considered opinion. Review transcripts and summaries for accuracy before filing them or sharing them with the client.
Communication and Client Consent (Rules 1.4 and 8.4)
The better rule — and now the express rule in New York City — is that lawyers must tell clients the recorder is running and obtain consent before it starts. NYC Formal Opinion 2025-6 holds that undisclosed AI recording is deceptive under Rule 8.4 and violates the duty of loyalty regardless of one-party-consent law, and regardless of whether the lawyer keeps only a summary. That reasoning will likely travel: the client is owed candor from her own lawyer above all.
Disclosure is also simply better practice. Secret recording, even where legal, destroys the very transparency and trust that a shared transcript is supposed to build. Don’t just disclose. Instead, explain why you record, offer the client the transcript, and give the client the chance to opt out. Disclosure belongs in the engagement agreement, which as discussed below in connection with state biometric privacy laws is also the natural place to capture written consent. A sample provision:
Use of AI Meeting Tools. To give you our full attention and an accurate record of our advice, we use secure AI tools to record, transcribe, and summarize certain client meetings and calls. By signing this agreement, you consent to that recording, including the processing of your voice, which some state laws treat as biometric data. You may opt out at any time, for any or all conversations, with no effect on our representation. We protect these records as confidential client communications, use only vetted tools that do not train AI on client data, avoid recording highly sensitive details, and review all transcripts and summaries for accuracy; until we adopt one, it is a draft, not our legal advice. We ask that you not record with your own tools, because consumer apps can risk waiving attorney-client privilege. We are always happy to share our transcript with you instead.
The consent conversation should run in both directions. When clients record with their own consumer apps, the lawyer loses control of the output since a recording can be edited, and insecure tools can waive privilege. In New York, lawyers may include an engagement provision expressly barring clients from recording attorney-client conversations. N.Y. State Bar Ethics Op. 1270. Even without going that far, explain the risks of DIY recording and offer your transcript as the substitute; the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism offers additional tips on handling client AI notetakers.
Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)
Comment 18 to Rule 1.6 requires “reasonable efforts” rather than Fort Knox level protection to prevent unauthorized disclosure. Lawyers should weigh the sensitivity of the information against the cost and difficulty of added safeguards. Applied here, reasonable efforts means layering prudent habits on top of a vetted tool: avoid recording trade secrets, or other highly sensitive material; download transcripts regularly to your own storage; and delete recordings from the vendor platform as soon as practicable.
Multi-party meetings deserve special caution. When settlement or negotiation participants each bring their own AI notetaker, every party must consent to every recorder — and as host, you may be on the hook when consent is missing, with no control over how the recordings are edited or disseminated later. Block uninvited AI scribes, announce in advance that notetakers are not permitted, and if a recording would be useful, designate one recorder that shares the output with all participants.
Compliance with State Biometric Privacy Laws
Ethics rules are not the only constraint — lawyers must also comply with federal, state, and local law. As the Federal Trade Commission has explained, biometric information includes data derived from depictions, images, or recordings of a person “to the extent that it would be reasonably possible to identify the person” from that data — a definition that may reach voice recordings. As of July 2026, several states, including Illinois, Texas, and Washington, and even local governments such as Erie County, New York, have adopted biometric privacy laws requiring informed, written consent before biometric information is collected.
Whether every statute reaches voice recordings is not yet settled, but the safe course is cheap: obtain written consent before the recording begins or, better, in the engagement agreement itself, using a provision like the one above. And because this body of law is expanding quickly, lawyers should track biometric and AI privacy legislation in the jurisdictions where they practice as part of the ongoing Rule 1.1 duty to keep abreast of changes in the law.
Conclusion
A lawyer may use AI notetakers with clients, and often should in order to enjoy the gains in accuracy, attention, and client transparency. To satisfy ethics obligations, lawyers should disclose and obtain consent, preferably in writing in the engagement agreement; vet the tool’s data handling before the first recording; use even a vetted tool prudently; review every transcript and summary before relying on it; block uninvited notetakers in multi-party meetings; and track the state biometric privacy laws that increasingly govern voice recording. Undisclosed recording of a client fails Rule 8.4 under the better view and fails the client under any view.
This area is moving fast. NYC Formal Opinion 2025-6 is the first regulator’s word on AI recording, not the last, and biometric privacy statutes are multiplying. Lawyers may expect the consent-and-disclosure baseline described here to remain in effect moving forward
MyShingle Ethics Opinions are advisory commentary by Carolyn Elefant to provide guidance to attorneys but similar to Ethics Hotline guidance is not binding and does not constitute legal advice. These opinions may be cited by researchers, ethics committees and courts. Lawyers should consult the rules and opinions of their own jurisdiction.
