Call recording laws for law firms come in two layers: a federal wiretap statute that lets a party to a call record it, and state statutes that set their own consent conditions on top.
Both layers land on intake calls, because call tracking platforms and AI receptionists record calls on the firm's behalf, and an intake call is often the first record a firm holds of a prospective client.
This page walks through what each layer says, with the statute citations a managing partner needs, and keeps the tracking platforms themselves over in call tracking for law firms.
The federal rule: one party's consent covers it
Federal wiretap law, 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d), allows a private party to record a call they are part of, or a call recorded with one party's consent, unless the recording is done to commit a criminal or tortious act.
The firm's side of an intake call supplies that party, so the federal text covers a firm recording its own line, and its second condition is that a recording must not be a tool for committing a crime or a tort.
States legislate on top of that federal permission, which is where the all-party statutes below come from.
Two-party consent states: what the statutes say
Search results call it two-party consent, and the statutes describe the same thing as consent from every party to the communication.
California Penal Code §632 makes it a crime to intentionally record a confidential communication, including a telephone call, without the consent of all parties, with a fine of up to $2,500 per violation and possible jail (amended by Stats. 2016, ch. 855, effective January 1, 2017).
The California statute turns on its own definition of a confidential communication, which this article does not unpack, so where its edges fall is a question for counsel rather than a summary here.
Washington RCW 9.73.030 prohibits recording private telephone communications without the consent of all participants, and treats consent as obtained when one party announces the recording to all parties in a reasonably effective way, with the announcement itself recorded.
Florida's wiretap statute allows intercepting a communication only "when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent" (Fla. Stat. §934.03).
Those three are the statutes verified against primary sources for this article, and this page deliberately publishes no full list of all-party states, because a list copied from another site carries whatever checking that site did, which is usually none you can see.
Which state's rule governs a call between a caller in one state and a firm in another is a separate question none of the three statutes answers, and it was not researched for this page, so treat it as one for counsel.
Where the two consent layers meet
- Announced, all-party state on the line
- Announced, one-party states
- Silent, one-party states
- Silent, all-party state on the line
Can a law firm record intake calls?
The two layers give the shape of the answer: the federal text permits a party to record, and the state layer determines whether every party also had to consent.
In practice, firms that record announce it at the start of the call, which is a common operating habit rather than a legal conclusion; Washington's statute shows the announcement doing real work, since an effective recorded announcement is how that state defines consent.
Recording consent also sits next to a different consent entirely: the current federal rule (47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9), eCFR text as of October 1, 2026) requires prior express written consent, a signed written agreement with e-signatures allowed, for telemarketing robocalls and robotexts made with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and that is consent to be contacted rather than consent to be recorded.
One trap from older guidance: the FCC's 2023 one-to-one consent add-on, which would have required lead forms to name one seller at a time, was vacated by the 11th Circuit on January 24, 2025 (Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC), so advice written in 2024 that treats it as upcoming is out of date.
Call tracking and recording consent
Call tracking vendors record calls on the firm's behalf, which puts every question above inside the firm's vendor stack rather than outside it.
The vendor questions to settle before recording stays on are where recordings are stored, who can access them, how long they are kept, and what the vendor's tools do with the audio.
- Map where your callers are: callers reach an intake line from other states, so the states to ask counsel about are the ones your calls actually touch.
- Ask what the recorder captures: call tracking and AI receptionist platforms record on the firm's behalf, so the firm's settings decide what gets recorded.
- Ask where recordings live: storage, access controls and retention are vendor questions with answers you want in writing before recording stays on.
- Script the announcement: say that the call is recorded at the start, and keep the announcement on the recording itself, as Washington's statute models.
- Clear any public use of a call: a caller's name, story or voice in marketing is the informed-consent question the opinions below describe.
- Take the last word to ethics counsel: your state bar's ethics counsel or an ethics lawyer can confirm how these rules reach your intake line.
AI receptionists add a second consent rule
An AI receptionist answers and records calls the way a staffed line does, so the recording rules above apply to it unchanged; the software itself is covered in AI receptionist for law firms.
A transcript raises a second question, because ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) says a client's informed consent is required before information relating to a representation is entered into a self-learning generative AI tool, and generic engagement-letter language is not enough to supply it.
The opinion's consent point is about self-learning tools rather than every AI task, so the vendor question is whether its models learn from the calls they transcribe.
An intake caller is usually a prospective client rather than a client, and where that leaves the consent requirement for a given call is a question about the opinion's scope, which is one more item for ethics counsel.
Once a recording exists, the confidentiality rules attach
A recorded intake call is a record of what a prospective client said, and ABA Formal Opinion 480 (March 6, 2018) says lawyers who blog, post or otherwise comment publicly may not reveal information relating to a representation, including information in a public record, unless a Model Rule authorizes it.
ABA Formal Opinion 10-457 (August 5, 2010) adds the naming rule: disclosing client identity for promotion is not normally impliedly authorized, so using a current or former client's name requires their informed consent.
The marketing use worth checking against both opinions is the grateful-caller clip on a landing page, and the firm's own state rule controls in every case.
Confirm it for your firm
Everything above describes what statutes and formal opinions say, with citations and dates, and none of it is advice about your firm's calls.
Your state bar's ethics counsel or an ethics lawyer can confirm how the federal rule, your state's statute and the announcement practice fit the intake line you actually run.
Frequently asked questions
Which states require all parties to consent to call recording?
This article verifies three from primary sources: California Penal Code §632, Washington RCW 9.73.030 and Florida Stat. §934.03, each of which requires every party's consent. Copied lists of all-party states carry no verification of their own, so confirm your states with your state bar's ethics counsel or an ethics lawyer.
Do I have to tell callers a call is being recorded?
Washington's RCW 9.73.030 treats an effective announcement, recorded on the call itself, as how consent is obtained, and announcing at the start is a common practice under other consent regimes. That is a description of one statute and one habit, not a statement of what your state requires.
Can a law firm use recorded intake calls in its marketing?
ABA Formal Opinion 480 (March 6, 2018) says lawyers who comment publicly may not reveal information relating to a representation, even facts in a public record, and ABA Formal Opinion 10-457 (August 5, 2010) says naming current or former clients requires their informed consent. Your own state's rule controls.
Does consent to be contacted count as consent to be recorded?
They are separate consents: 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9) requires prior express written consent for telemarketing robocalls and robotexts, which covers contact, not recording. Recording consent comes from the federal wiretap statute and your state's version of it.
Do call tracking vendors handle recording consent?
Call tracking and AI receptionist vendors record calls on the firm's behalf, so the same consent questions attach to those recordings. Ask a vendor where recordings are stored, who can access them, how long they are kept and whether its AI tools learn from the audio.