AI Recording Clause for Client Engagement Letters

Both of the recent ethics opinions on AI notetaking end up in the same place: put it in the engagement letter. The New York City Bar's Formal Opinion 2025-6 asks lawyers to obtain client consent before recording and to advise clients about their own recording tools. The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism is blunter still, listing "update your engagement letter and client communication practices" as one of four steps and adding that informed consent should be the rule rather than the exception.

Neither opinion gives you wording. This page does. Everything below is a starting point to adapt to your jurisdiction, your practice and your matter, not legal advice, and it is written by a software company rather than by your bar.

Why a clause beats a conversation

You can ask for consent verbally at the top of every call, and you should. A clause does three things a conversation cannot.

It sets the position once, before the first recording rather than during it. It gives you something to point at when a client arrives with their own notetaker running, which the Illinois commission identifies as the harder problem precisely because you never see what that tool captured. And it creates a record that the discussion happened, which is the thing you will want if a recording is ever argued over.

What the clause has to cover

Four things, and they map directly onto what the opinions ask for.

Whether you record, and with what. Name the practice, not the product. Tools change and a clause naming a specific vendor is out of date the moment procurement changes its mind.

Where the recording is processed and stored. This is the part clients increasingly ask about and the part that decides the privilege question. If the audio goes to an outside vendor, say so. If it stays on the firm's own machines, say that, because it is a materially different answer.

How long it is kept and when it is destroyed. Retention is a commitment, and a clause that promises deletion the firm does not actually perform is worse than no clause.

What happens if the client records. The clause the opinions most want and the one most firms omit.

Sample clause: the standard version

For general commercial and advisory work where recording is routine and the matter is not unusually sensitive.

Recording and AI-assisted notes. We may record our meetings and calls with you and use software to produce a transcript and a written summary. We will tell you before any recording begins and you may decline, at any time and for any meeting, without needing to give a reason. Declining will not affect how we act for you.

Recordings, transcripts and summaries are treated as part of your confidential file and are retained and destroyed under our standard file retention policy. Where the software we use processes the recording outside our own systems, we will tell you which supplier is involved before we use it on your matter.

Any transcript or summary is a working aid, not a record of our advice. Our advice to you is what we give you in writing.

That last paragraph matters more than it looks. The NYC Bar opinion asks lawyers to check AI output for accuracy where it might be preserved and relied on. Saying plainly that the summary is not the advice reduces the chance a client acts on a machine's paraphrase of what you said.

Sample clause: the sensitive-matter version

For contentious, regulatory, criminal or otherwise high-stakes work, where the better default is not to record at all.

Recording. We do not record meetings or calls on this matter, and we ask that you do not record them either. If you would like a record of a discussion, tell us and we will provide a written note.

If you record any meeting with us, please tell us before it begins. We may ask you not to, and we will explain why. A recording of a privileged discussion that is stored or processed by a third party may weaken the protection that applies to it.

Opting out is a legitimate answer and the opinions treat it as one. The NYC Bar states that attorneys are free to choose not to use AI to record such conversations. Some matters are that kind of matter.

The clause most firms are missing: when the client records

This is the scenario the Illinois commission flags as the greater concern, because you never see the recording, cannot verify the transcript and have no idea where it is stored.

If you use your own recording or AI tools. Please tell us in advance if you intend to record our meetings or use an AI assistant to transcribe or summarise them, so we can discuss it first. Recordings and summaries produced by your own tools are not our records, we cannot verify their accuracy, and we are not bound by them.

Where an AI tool stores or processes a recording of a privileged discussion, the protection that normally applies to that discussion may be weakened, and we may not be able to control or reverse that. If you rely on a summary produced by your tool, please check it with us before acting on it.

What a clause cannot do

A clause is a starting position, not a shield, and it is worth being clear about the gaps.

It does not override recording law. Consent rules differ by jurisdiction, and in all-party consent states every participant has to agree, not just your client. Some states also regulate voiceprints as biometric data, which speaker identification may generate. A signed engagement letter does not answer either question. Our wider note on whether it is legal to record a meeting covers the general position.

It does not choose your tool for you. The confidentiality analysis still comes down to where the audio goes, whether it trains a model, and who at the vendor can read it. We work through those three in can lawyers use AI note takers.

It does not remove the review duty. You still have to read the transcript before relying on it.

It is not a substitute for a court reporter. Nothing here applies to depositions or anything else requiring a certified transcript. That is a different job with a different professional standard.

FAQ

Do I need client consent to record a meeting with my client?

Under NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6, yes. The opinion asks attorneys to obtain client consent before recording and treats quietly enabling a notetaker as inconsistent with the candour owed to a client. Separately from ethics, recording law in your jurisdiction may require consent from every participant, which is a legal question rather than a professional one.

Should the consent be in the engagement letter or asked each time?

Both. The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism recommends addressing AI notetaking in the standard engagement agreement so that informed consent is the rule rather than the exception. Asking again at the top of the meeting is what makes it real, and it gives the client a genuine opportunity to decline.

What if my client turns up with their own AI note taker?

Tell them what it costs them. The recording reaches a third-party server, the privilege protection may weaken, and an inaccurate summary may shape their understanding of your advice. The opinions place a duty on you to advise them of those risks. A clause agreed at the outset makes that a short conversation rather than an awkward one.

Can I just record everything and decide later?

You can, and it is usually a poor idea. The opinions ask two separate questions: whether recording is permitted, and whether it is tactically wise on this matter. The second one is the one that gets skipped. A verbatim, searchable record of a privileged conversation is a thing that then exists, and on some matters that is a liability rather than an asset.

Does using a local AI note taker mean I do not need the clause?

No. Keeping the audio on your own machine removes the outside vendor, the retention schedule and the model training question. It does not remove the consent duty, the review duty, or the recording law in your state. The clause is about permission, not architecture.

A clause does not protect a conversation. It only records that you asked first.

If the clause you write commits to keeping recordings inside the firm, the tool has to actually do that. Weeve records, transcribes and summarises on the Mac itself, with nothing of the meeting uploaded, on a free plan covering ten recordings a month. It needs Apple Silicon and macOS 14.4 or later, and it will not ask your client for consent on your behalf.