The increasing use of AI-enabled meeting tools means that organizations are no longer dealing with a single minutes document, but a complex ecosystem of recordings, machine transcripts, AI summaries, decks and conventional minutes. Without deliberate governance, retention and privilege frameworks, the risks of inconsistent records, spoliation, waiver of privilege and data-governance exposure escalate. In-house compliance officers and general counsel should lead the development and execution of tailored policies as set out below.
Documentation proliferation and divergence risk
AI-driven note-taking and meeting assistants generate multiple layers of documentation, often without clear hierarchy or review. A single meeting may yield an audio or video recording, an automatically produced transcript, an AI-drafted summary, and later, a formal set of approved minutes. Each version can differ in language, attribution and tone. In any dispute or investigation, these discrepancies can undermine credibility or raise questions about which document represents the authoritative record.
Machine transcripts may capture side comments, incomplete thoughts or informal remarks that traditional minutes would omit. AI summaries may misstate, paraphrase or oversimplify key points. As a result, organizations can face unexpected discovery exposure when these materials—sometimes stored by third-party vendors—surface as business records that were never intended for external scrutiny.
Adding to the complexity, many organizations are deploying these tools precisely because they are marketed as cost-saving alternatives to human note-taking or traditional board secretariat support. While automation can reduce administrative expense, the downstream costs of inconsistent records, misattribution or privilege loss can far exceed any upfront efficiencies. Awareness of these risks is essential for boards and counsel who are advising on whether, and how, to permit AI capture in meetings.
Key risk areas for in-house teams
Inconsistent Records and Credibility Challenges. When AI-generated transcripts differ from formal minutes, adverse parties or regulators may rely on the more detailed version. Such discrepancies can raise questions about completeness, accuracy and process—particularly in the context of board or audit-committee proceedings.
Retention, Preservation and Legal Hold Implications. Across industries, legal regimes require preservation of business records and decision-making documentation. If AI-generated outputs form part of the business process, they may be deemed "records" for retention and legal-hold purposes. Failure to capture, preserve or delete these appropriately could expose organizations to spoliation risk or discovery sanctions.
Privilege and Confidentiality Exposure. Use of AI meeting assistants in settings where legal counsel is present or sensitive issues are discussed creates heightened privilege risk. Many AI platforms store or train on transcript data, and their contractual terms may not recognize attorney-client or work-product protections. If privileged content is captured or processed through such platforms, organizations may face inadvertent waiver of confidentiality.
Vendor, Data Governance and Notice Requirements. AI note-taking tools raise fundamental questions of data ownership, storage, cross-border transfer, vendor reuse, encryption and compliance with recording-consent laws. In many jurisdictions, all participants must consent to recording. Even where a "click-through" consent box exists, liability may arise if additional participants join after consent is obtained or are unaware a recording continues. The same principles may apply when AI tools later generate summaries or notes from recorded content. These compliance gaps can create exposure beyond the underlying documentation risk.
Chilling of Board and Strategic Discussions. Knowledge that recordings and transcripts exist can inhibit open discussion in boardrooms and committees. The move from selective summaries to verbatim records can alter how directors engage, potentially affecting governance dynamics and deliberative candor.
Practical considerations for policy, process and governance
Organizations can mitigate these risks through clear governance structures and proactive controls.
- Define meeting categories and capture protocols. Create a classification system for meetings (e.g., operational calls, strategy sessions, board meetings, privileged briefings) and specify whether AI capture is permitted or restricted. High-risk meetings may require manual minutes only.
- Vendor due diligence and contracting. Evaluate AI-note-taking vendors for data-security standards, model-training practices, storage locations and deletion rights. Contracts should define data ownership, restrict secondary use, and require deletion upon termination.
- Notice and consent management. Implement clear procedures to inform participants when recordings or AI processing occur. Build redundant safeguards for late joiners or hybrid participants. Failure to secure valid consent may violate jurisdictional laws or internal policies.
- Human review and version control. No AI-generated output should become a formal record without review. Establish verification protocols, correct misattribution and label drafts appropriately (e.g., "AI-generated—subject to review"). Determine and record which version constitutes the official minutes.
- Retention schedules and legal holds. Update retention policies to include recordings, transcripts, AI summaries and decks. Integrate these categories into legal-hold systems to ensure consistent preservation and defensible deletion.
- Privilege controls. For meetings involving counsel or strategic discussions, prohibit AI capture unless the platform has been validated for privilege protection. Consider encryption, restricted access and secure storage.
- Training and oversight. Train directors, officers and meeting owners on the implications of AI-generated records. Establish monitoring mechanisms to track tool usage and compliance. Review and refresh these policies as AI technologies evolve.
Strategic considerations for boards and legal departments
The boardroom record has entered a new era. As AI meeting tools proliferate, organizations face the challenge of balancing efficiency with governance integrity. Boards, compliance officers and general counsel should lead in defining how AI-generated content fits within their governance frameworks—ensuring accuracy, consistency, retention and privilege are preserved. Proactive policy development and disciplined oversight will be essential to maintaining credible records and protecting the organization in future disputes, investigations or regulatory reviews.
For a broader/global perspective on AI-generated meeting records, see our related client alert, "AI in the Boardroom: privilege and recording decisions | White & Case LLP."
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
