Discussion: View Thread

Hi all,

I looked through some of the previous posts about audio recordings and couldn't find anything that describes a circumstance that I found myself in so I thought I would ask for input. I was recently at a petitioner attorney's office to do an intake interview with a client and the attorney asked if he could audio record the interview. He explained that he uses AI to create a summary of the interview. I gave permission for him to do so and there was no testing involved. With the emergence of AI I anticipate that this will become more common but I have concerns about it's use and possible errors in summaries generated by the AI. Has anyone else had this experience and does anyone have any thoughts about whether this should be something we as a field allow?

John,

"...and critique the contents to preserve accuracy. "  I would also add: Requesting party is responsible for payment of my time to do so".  Or something to that effect. 

This is of interest to me because I was questioned at length about it by opposing counsel during a recent depo. I do not record my interviews, but OC asked why I do not since surely I would want a judge and jury to know everything that was said in the interview. I stood my ground, cited factors such as its impact on establishing rapport, its effect on openness and willingness of the person being interviewed to disclose important information, ethical factors, etc. The fact that it was a pediatric case seemed to make no difference to the attorney deposing me, and he said other VEs record their interviews. I've only seen evidence of that in one report by an opposing VE in the past few years, and I've asked many colleagues about this. Especially with AI technology and more ways to record than we've ever had, this is a topic I think merits further discussion within our profession. While technology can streamline some of what we do in our work, we must use it responsibly and ethically. I hope our credentialling bodies are considering beefing up their codes of ethics to include use of AI and similar emerging technology. 

Colleagues,

Thanks for raising this as it is timely and important. Two quick points up front:

1. Credentialing bodies & AI
   As president of the American Board of Vocational Experts (ABVE), I agree that credentialing organizations should speak to AI. ABVE has done so: we are, to my knowledge, the first and only board-certifying body for vocational experts to publicly adopt and publish guidelines for ethical AI use in forensic vocational evaluations (ABVE, 2025). These guidelines emphasize transparency, documentation of AI inputs/outputs, quality control, and protection of confidential information-principles that directly touch recording and AI-generated summaries.

2. Recording vocational evaluations: it depends on the venue and governing rule set
• General framework (Frye/Daubert): Courts generally manage expert evidence under Frye or Daubert. Pennsylvania is a Frye jurisdiction, which focuses on general acceptance; other venues may be Daubert (reliability factors). While these standards govern admissibility and not the mechanics of interviews, it is my understanding that they inform how judges might view the provenance of audio, transcripts, and AI-assisted summaries.
• Pennsylvania specifics (court-ordered exams): For court-ordered physical/mental examinations, Pa. R.C.P. 4010(a)(4)(i) expressly gives the person being examined a right to have counsel or another representative present. Some trial-level orders have also permitted audio recording of the entire psychological examination-including testing, while others have limited or denied it; there's no blanket "recording right" in the rule itself, as confirmed by various attorneys I have spoken to about this over the years.
• Pennsylvania depositions (not interviews): Depositions can be recorded by audio-visual means under Pa. R.C.P. 4017.1 and conducted per Rule 4007.1-but that regime does not automatically extend to a non-deposition vocational interview.
• Pennsylvania consent-to-record laws: Separate from civil-procedure rules, Pennsylvania's Wiretap Act is an all-party consent statute; recording an in-person interview or call requires the consent of all parties. In practice, that means advance notice and explicit consent before any audio recording of a vocational evaluation that is not a deposition or a court-ordered Rule 4010 exam governed by a specific court order.

My practice policy:

• I will permit audio recording of a vocational evaluation (never vocational testing) under certain conditions, irrespective of venue. For example, when it is consistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable court orders. Where an examination is conducted under Pa. R.C.P. 4010, the evaluee has the right to have counsel or a representative present; any additional recording must comport with the Wiretap Act's all-party consent requirement and any case-specific orders
• If any party intends to audio record, I require a court reporter to attend so there is a complete, neutral transcript. I request the opportunity to review the transcript and make necessary errata.

I have not yet encountered a request from opposing counsel in a civil litigation matter to use AI to summarize the recording. However, given the popularity of AI, this is a scenario that most of us will encounter at some point.

Different venues and rules can permit or limit recording; in Pennsylvania, the clear, codified right is the presence of counsel/representative at Rule 4010 exams, with recording dependent on consent and/or court order. If one opts to allow recordings, it is my belief that this should occur only with clear protocols that protect accuracy, confidentiality, and fairness-and when AI is used, we should follow credentialing-level guidance such as ABVE's published standards.

Maria A. Babinetz, MS, CRC, ABVE/D, IPEC, CCM, CDMS

Licensed Professional Counselor – PA

Licensed Rehabilitation Counselor – NJ

Signature Rehabilitation Services, LLC