Is it legal to record a client call? A state-by-state guide for personal injury intake
Short answer: it depends on the state, and personal injury intake is a higher-risk case than most kinds of calls to get this wrong on, because the caller is often a first-time, distressed, unrepresented person, and the accident, the caller, and the insurance adjuster can each be in a different state. This is general information, not legal advice. Confirm current requirements with your own counsel before changing how your firm records calls.
Why this matters more for personal injury intake than most calls
Recording a client call is what makes an AI notetaker useful in the first place, and it's also the moment where getting consent wrong creates real exposure. An improperly recorded call can be excluded as evidence, can expose a firm to civil or criminal liability under state wiretapping law, and can raise a professional-responsibility problem with the bar, independent of whether a wiretapping claim would ever actually be brought.
Personal injury intake specifically raises the stakes. The caller is frequently reaching out for the first time, often in pain, often having never spoken to a lawyer before, and often unaware that the call might be recorded at all. The accident may have happened in one state, the caller may live in another, and the insurance adjuster on a later call may be in a third. Consent law is state-specific, and a call that touches more than one state's law doesn't resolve cleanly to whichever rule is more convenient.
What actually goes wrong when a firm gets this wrong
Three distinct kinds of exposure, not one: the recording itself can be excluded as evidence in the underlying case, meaning the reason you wanted it in the first place stops mattering; the firm can face civil or, in some states, criminal liability under that state's wiretapping statute, independent of the underlying personal injury matter entirely; and the firm can face a professional-responsibility complaint with the bar for recording a client without proper consent, which is a reputational and licensing problem that doesn't require a wiretapping claim to ever be filed. Any one of these is a real cost. A firm that only prepares for the first one is missing the other two.
One-party versus two-party consent, briefly
- One-party consent states. Only one participant needs to consent before a call can be recorded, and that participant can be the firm itself. Most states work this way.
- Two-party (all-party) consent states. Every participant must consent before a call can be recorded.
One-party consent isn't a reason to skip disclosure, either. A caller who finds out later that they were recorded without being told, even somewhere it was technically legal, is a client relationship problem before it's ever a legal one, and it's the kind of thing that surfaces in a bar complaint even when the underlying recording was permitted.
If the call touches more than one state, the safer default is to treat it as if the stricter rule applies and get everyone's consent, rather than trying to determine after the fact which state's law would have controlled. For the full policy, see Recording and Consent.
Browse by state
Each of the 13 all-party states below has its own guide, with the state-specific detail that's worth knowing beyond the general rule.
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
A practical default that works regardless of state
The simplest, most defensible practice is an audible disclosure at the start of every call: stating plainly that the call is being recorded, and letting the caller continue (or not) with that knowledge. In most jurisdictions, continuing the conversation after that disclosure is treated as consent. It's not a substitute for knowing your state's specific rule, but it's a sound baseline that doesn't depend on getting the caller's state right on a rushed intake call.
A few practices worth building into intake regardless of jurisdiction:
- Disclose at the start of the call, every time, not just when someone asks.
- Record which consent mode applied to a given call and keep that record with the file, not just the recording itself.
- Set consent policy at the firm level, not left to whichever staff member happens to take the call.
- Treat a call where consent wasn't clearly established as a call that still needs to be documented some other way, not simply discarded.
How Astrid handles this
Astrid's consent mode is a firm-level setting: self-attestation, automatic detection, or both. Meetings joined by Astrid's notetaker bot include an audible disclosure that it's recording. Every call carries a consent record, visible in the workspace and included in exports. None of this replaces a firm's own legal judgment about a specific call, client, or jurisdiction, it exists to help a firm document and check its own compliance consistently. It's one of the things worth checking on any notetaker before you buy, see our comparison of AI notetakers for personal injury and plaintiff firms for the rest of the list, and the real cost of a missed intake call for why documenting every call, not just the ones that feel important, matters more for a contingency-fee firm than it looks like it should.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between one-party and two-party consent?
In a one-party consent state, only one participant on the call needs to agree to being recorded, and that can be the firm itself. In a two-party (all-party) consent state, every participant has to consent before the call can be recorded, including the client and anyone else on the line.
Which states require all-party consent?
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. This is general information, not legal advice, and consent law can change; confirm current requirements with your own counsel.
What if the client and the firm are in different states?
A call that crosses state lines can pull in more than one state's law, and courts don't apply this consistently. The safer default in that situation is to treat the call as if the stricter of the two states' rules applies, and get everyone's consent.
Is a bar complaint a real risk here, separate from a wiretapping claim?
Yes. Recording a client without proper consent can raise a professional-responsibility problem with the bar even in situations where a civil wiretapping claim would be hard to bring, since it touches client communication and trust independent of the criminal or civil statute.
Does announcing the recording out loud at the start of a call solve this?
An audible disclosure that the call is being recorded, followed by the caller continuing the conversation, is generally treated as consent in most jurisdictions, and it's a reasonable default that works regardless of which state's rule actually applies. It doesn't replace legal advice on a specific matter, but it's a sound baseline practice.
Is it still worth disclosing a recording in a one-party consent state?
Yes. One-party consent means the firm can legally record without the caller's agreement, but a caller who later learns they were recorded without being told is a client-trust problem before it's ever a legal one, and it's the kind of thing that can still surface in a bar complaint even where the recording itself was permitted.
What actually happens to a firm that gets consent wrong on a recorded call?
Three separate risks, not one: the recording can be excluded as evidence in the underlying case, the firm can face civil or criminal liability under that state's wiretapping statute, and the firm can face a professional-responsibility complaint with the bar, independent of whether the other two ever materialize.