AI-bot transcript: bad

​

Renew Legal specialises in renewables, construction, engineering and technology projects

​

March 2025

​​

I have had three meetings this year where the meeting was being transcribed by an AI bot.  There were sophisticated people, lawyers, and presumably robust IT policies in the background. And me feeling uncomfortable. Also, it is CPD time for lawyers, so the warnings from the two ‘Risks of AI in legal practice’ sessions I attended – too risky, don’t use – seem relevant.

​

Here is another warning, probably more relevant to the commercial / director level (and IT) people: you do not want transcribed minutes of your meeting.

 

Why not? What an attractive proposition: skip meetings, receive dot points and action items.

 

But the bot takes in everything said which will conflict with traditional minutes.  You don’t want conflicting versions. So then does the bot summary of the transcript become the minutes? That seems a bit negligent and risky.

​

Imagine the board of a polluter was discussing the use of the word “clean” in the context of share market announcement to investors which had the potential to increase the share price. It would be better to have agreed minutes of a meeting settling on a decision, not a transcript of everything that was discussed, including dissenting opinions, or exposing constructive knowledge of something contradicting the concept of “clean”.

​

What about a community group that intends to sue a polluter? Better that the committee meeting minutes reflect the good grounds for bringing the proceedings, and belief in the strength of the argument, rather than revealing concerns about potential weakness or inability to cover the other side’s legal costs if they lose.  Given the strategy of stronger parties seeking security for costs to prevent smaller parties from enforcing their rights, you don’t want those matters before a judge to distort the playing field.  The stronger party’s legal team would love to have the detailed transcript, rather than the minutes.

 

Traditional minutes vs AI transcript

 

Meeting minutes are meant to be a concise summary of discussions, capturing key points and decisions made. The obligation to take and keep them is found in s 251A of the Corporations Act 2001. The general understanding is that minutes don't need to be a verbatim record, but must show the reasons for decisions. It is up to the directors / Chair to include sufficient detail.

 

There might be a note of some alternative positions to show a discussion took place and a considered decision was arrived at, but you don’t expect word for word. They are typically reviewed and agreed upon by the participants, serving as an official record.  When I take minutes, I finalise them immediately after the meeting so they are fresh in the attendees’ minds.  The process allows for clarity and consistency, providing protection to directors or committee members, and the company, against potential legal challenges by ensuring that only agreed-upon statements are documented.

 

In contrast, an AI-bot will record every (most) word spoken, including informal remarks or discussions that are likely not intended to be documented.  A verbatim record will always contain discrepancies with the agreed minutes.  But there they are, written down. And you probably have to keep this document now because you created it.

​

What happens when you are in legal proceedings and during discovery the other side requests “Board meeting minutes DRAFT 18-Feb-25”, “Board meeting minutes FINAL 18-Feb-25 (approved 18-Mar-25)” and critically “Board meeting Teams Meeting Transcript 18-Mar-25”.  While the minutes documents might mention "legal advice was sought, considered and discussed", the transcript will reveal that advice and all discussion flowing from it.

 

The differences between the documents may have a critical bearing on legal proceedings.  It could also expose a company to further risks, if there were potential misleading statements to the ASX and Maurice Blackburn is now advertising for shareholder class action members.

 

Risk to directors

​

The discrepancies between AI-generated transcripts and formal minutes might be leveraged in disputes to question a director's knowledge or intentions, particularly regarding compliance and environmental obligations.

​

Would the existence of diverging statements be a breach of your directors duties to act in good faith, exercise care and diligence, and avoid conflicts of interest (see s 180 of the Corporations Act 2001)?  The existence of verbatim transcripts that record every comment can place directors at risk of breaching these duties, should historical transcripts reveal instances of neglect or ignorance of law, regulation or obligations.

 

Could a director inadvertently invalidate the directors & officers insurance policy? Disaster.

​

For example, if a transcript reveals a director's lack of understanding or dismissal of environmental concerns, it could be used to argue that the director failed to exercise due care and diligence. Such evidence would not typically be available from agreed minutes, as they are constructed to focus on material decisions rather than informal discussions.

 

Risk to the company

 

It is not just the public facing directors at the top level. Any employee is at risk of having a full transcript of their comments, understanding, lack of understanding, rudeness, lateness, inattentiveness, humour, lack of humour or dissent used against them.

 

In a cybersecurity sense, the minutes of board meetings are probably held somewhere with restricted access (excluding of course the fact that a not insignificant proportion of board members seem to use free public email accounts to receive highly sensitive documents).  Transcripts of middle management meetings discussing the full details of highly sensitive projects and products may not be so secure and may just be emailed to a wide group.

Either through data breaches or by deliberate leakage, the release of sensitive information recorded verbatim will have significant implications for a company, including loss of competitive advantage and reputational damage.

​

Using transcripts

​

Don't. There are too many negatives for the transcript.  If it must be used because of the efficiency gains:

​​

• Policies: you need clear policies on how you use these tools.  There would need to be a clear distinction between informal transcripts and official minutes.  Note: at this point, you have created the record and you are required to keep it for at least six years.

• Reviews: Regular audits and legal team review of whether the process should continue.  The IT team needs to demonstrate that transcripts are stored securely and that data management complies with privacy laws and corporate governance etc.

• Redaction and deletion policies: Get advice on whether it is possible to redact transcripts, or even have an automatic deletion after 30 days policy.

​

Or:

 

• Go back to minutes and action items: realise that this is all too risk and revert to the safer option.

​​

This article is a summary and general overview of matters of interest. It is not comprehensive and does not constitute legal advice.  You should also get accounting advice if you are thinking about this.

 

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation