Is it allowed to use AI for board minutes and privilege in Australia?
Only after someone has read the vendor terms and decided the privilege risk. Legal-advice items should not be recorded by the tool.
Guide
How to use AI for board minutes and privilege in Australia
An AI note-taker in a board meeting can record legal advice and send it to a vendor. That is a privilege question before it is a productivity question.
Steps
Decide the privilege risk before the note-taker joins
A recording of legal advice, sent to a vendor under terms you have not read, can be argued as a disclosure. Read the terms: who is the processor, whether the audio trains a model, and who else at the company can open the transcript. The OAIC guidance and Queensland Guidance Statement No. 37 are the privacy and confidentiality readings. The Uniform Law statement keeps the solicitor responsible for the confidentiality of the advice. If you cannot explain the disclosure, do not record the item.
Keep the note-taker out of the legal-advice items
Pause or remove the tool when the board turns to privileged advice, investigations, or a matter in dispute. The minutes of that item are taken by a person. The Law Society of New South Wales guide expects the solicitor to understand what the tool captured. A transcript of the whole meeting, privilege included, is the outcome to avoid.
Record the checks: Confidentiality tasks · Open the court note for the forum
Sources
Confidentiality tasks · Transcribing meetings · Australian data hosting · In-house counsel tasks · All guides
Questions
What tools are used for board minutes and privilege?
This page does not approve a note-taker. The meeting-transcription guide covers consent and hosting. Privilege is a further reason to leave the tool out of part of the meeting.
Does privilege survive because the firm paid for the tool?
Not by itself. Payment does not decide whether sending the audio to the vendor was a disclosure. Read the terms.