Artificial intelligence meeting transcription and summarization tools—whether imbedded in enterprise platforms like Zoom, or available through third-party services such as Otter.ai – are being integrated in the corporate workplace at warp speed, often without the knowledge of platform users. Promoting these products as “game changers,” companies boast their capabilities to automate note taking, generate searchable records, and even translate foreign languages, among other capabilities. But with this rapid adoption of new technology comes significant legal, privacy, and ethical risks that law firms and employers cannot afford to ignore.

What Are AI Transcription and Meeting Summarization Tools?

AI transcription tools use speech recognition and natural language processing capabilities to convert real speech to text, create summaries, highlight key passages, translate foreign languages, and compile action items discussed in virtual meetings, among other things. Some come already imbedded in remote meeting platforms, such as Zoom AI Companion. Others may be accessed through third-party applications and websites, such as Otter.ai, which are often integrated into users’ preexisting platforms to join video meetings—as if they were a participant—through virtual calendar invitations.

Not all AI transcription tools bear the same risk profile. When configured under enterprise licenses, such tools typically operate under the organization’s existing security infrastructure, protected through encryption and not exported to external servers. Employers can control access to transcription features and negotiate additional security protections with their provider as needed. By contrast, third-party services may involve calendar access, automated AI participation in virtual meetings, separate terms of service and privacy policies, and potential data storage on and disclosure to external servers—typically for purposes of training newer AI models.

Practical Risks: Why Attorneys and Employers Must Pay Attention

Of utmost concern is the potential breach of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality of communications through the use—knowing or inadvertent—of AI meeting transcription tools. Automatic recording and transcription of meetings where sensitive legal strategy is discussed runs the risk of being exposed to third-party vendors, making due diligence into the terms and conditions and privacy policies of your particular vendor essential for preventing accidental privilege waiver. Attorneys should also check their go-to video conferencing platforms to ensure that AI transcription tools are not set to “on” by default.

Waiver of the attorney-client privilege is not the only concern involved in the use of AI transcription tools. Other risks include:

• Privacy Law Risks: Several jurisdictions require participant consent before recording conversations, such as California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, among others. AI transcription tools that join meetings or record conversations without the affirmative consent of all participants may expose law firms, employers, and individuals using the platforms to violations of federal and/or state law and associated penalties.
• Discovery and Litigation Risks: Particularly when retained as business records, AI-transcribed conversations, meeting minutes, and/or summaries may become discoverable in litigation. Whether it be privileged discussions, business strategy meetings, conversations disclosing proprietary information or trade secrets, or casual talks that may not be well reflected in a word-for-word transcript, businesses and law firms must be aware that their conversations can create a permanent, searchable record that may later be preserved and produced in litigation. Rarely will these recorded discussions contain attorney impressions, making them vulnerable to discovery.
• Ethical Risks: All attorneys learn about the ethical duties of confidentiality and competency, yet their application to new technologies is not always readily apparent. AI transcription tools bear the risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential communications. And where lawyers use AI tools without understanding how they work, where the data is stored, or whether output is consistently accurate, they may be in violation of the duty to competently represent their clients. State bar associations and ethics committees have already issued guidance cautioning about the use of AI tools without proper safeguards.
• Professional Liability Risks: While AI transcription has come a long way, it is far from perfect. Misheard words, incorrect speaker designations or “hallucinated” dialogue can lead to inaccurate records, miscommunication, litigation risks, and potential professional liability—for example, an attorney relying on an inaccurate AI-generated transcript as a record of client instructions, exposing them to professional malpractice.

Managing Risk: Best Practices

Businesses interested in utilizing AI transcription tools should consider the following examples of best practices to manage risk and reduce potential liability exposure:

• Contact administrative and/or IT teams to ensure AI transcription tools are set to “off” by default, then toggling the tools “on” once participants’ consent to recording is obtained and documented;
• Disclose use of AI transcription tools—or any AI tool—to clients and the practical risks and benefits involved in their use, particularly when conversations are being recorded or saved by third-party, nonenterprise platforms;
• Review vendors’ terms of service, privacy policies, and data retention policies to ensure critical security and encryption protections are in place; specifically, to ensure client data is not stored on external servers and/or otherwise used for training newer AI models;
• Educate attorneys, staff, and other employees about the inherent risks in using AI technology, and establish companywide policies governing the use of AI tools for meeting transcription purposes or otherwise;
• Establish internal safeguards preventing employees from using third-party AI transcription tools that may present security concerns;
• Implement appropriate preservation protocols if using AI transcription tools for meetings during a period where the duty to preserve is in effect and add attorney impressions to protect the transcription as work product; and
• Analyze AI work product to identify possible “hallucinations” and ensure transcript accuracy.

This article does not advocate for a universal prohibition against the use of AI transcription tools—under appropriate circumstances, such features offer businesses great utility and flexibility. But that does not mean that attorneys, law firms, and employers should not implement appropriate safeguards to ensure such tools are used responsibly.

Reprinted with permission from law.com, © ALM Media Properties LLC. All rights reserved.