Recording client calls, without the guesswork
Reviewed August 19, 2026
Why this matters
Plaintiff firms run on client calls, and a single call can carry hours of intake detail, treatment updates, and settlement conversation. Recording it is what makes Astrid useful. It is 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 even criminal liability under state wiretapping law, and can raise a professional-responsibility problem with the bar. None of that is specific to Astrid. It is true of any recorded call. This page explains the landscape and how Astrid's consent tools help a firm stay ahead of it.
One-party vs. two-party consent, briefly
Every state regulates who has to consent before a phone call or in-person conversation can be recorded. States generally fall into one of two buckets:
- One-party consent states. Only one participant in the call needs to consent to recording, which means the attorney or staff member on the call can consent on their own behalf, and no one else's agreement is legally required. Most states work this way.
- Two-party (or "all-party") consent states. Every participant in the call must consent before it can be recorded, not just the person doing the recording.
The states below are generally treated as requiring all-party consent. This list is for general orientation only: read the callout underneath it before you rely on it for anything.
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
This is general information, not legal advice. Consent law is state-specific, courts in some states have interpreted their own statutes in ways that don't map cleanly onto a simple one-party/two-party label (Nevada and Montana in particular have real nuance), and a call between parties in two different states can pull in more than one state's law at once (including, sometimes, the stricter of the two). Confirm current requirements with your own counsel for every jurisdiction you operate in, and don't treat this list as complete or current on its own.
How Astrid helps
Astrid gives a firm tools to document and, where configured, automatically check for recording consent:
- Consent mode, set per firm. Choose self-attestation (an attorney confirms consent was addressed), automatic detection (Astrid checks the conversation itself for consent language), or both, with a sensible default suggested from the jurisdictions a firm actually operates in.
- Audible disclosure on bot-joined meetings. When Astrid's meeting notetaker joins a video call, it announces itself out loud, so every participant hears that a recording and transcript are being made, not just a passive indicator on screen.
- A consent record on every call. Whatever was detected or attested is saved with the call itself, visible in the call workspace and included in exports, part of the same record an attorney reviews before approving the file note.
- Per-speaker detection where possible. When a call transcript can be broken out by speaker, Astrid can show whether consent language was detected from each participant individually, not just the call as a whole.
The firm is still responsible
Astrid's consent tools are there to help a firm document and check its own compliance. They are not a substitute for a firm's legal judgment about a specific call, client, or jurisdiction. Determining which consent rules apply, and making sure they're actually met on a given call, is the firm's responsibility. If you're not sure what applies to your practice, talk to your own counsel before relying on any automated tool, Astrid included.
Questions
If you have questions about how Astrid's consent features work, or want to talk through how to configure them for your firm, we're glad to walk through it.