Lawyers: answering the phone under the constraint of professional secrecy

Someone who has just been dismissed, a parent in the middle of a custody dispute, a company director facing an inspection: when they pick up the phone to call a firm, they are rarely in an administrative frame of mind. They talk fast and give names, dates, sometimes details they have confided to no one.

Reception thus finds itself holding sensitive information before any contractual relationship exists. It is a particularity of the profession: discretion does not begin when the fee agreement is signed, but from the very first ring.

In France, Article 66-5 of the Act of 31 December 1971 covers, in all matters, the lawyer’s legal opinions, correspondence exchanged with the client, meeting notes and, more generally, all documents in the file. A note taken on the phone or a call summary may therefore fall within the scope of what the firm must protect.

The practical consequence is simple: any call-handling arrangement, human or automated, must be thought of as an extension of the firm. It is up to each lawyer to assess whether their tools are compatible with their professional conduct obligations, consulting their bar if necessary; this article does not replace that analysis.

Good practice consists of gently channelling the caller. They are asked for their identity, a way of reaching them, the area of law concerned in one sentence (employment, family, criminal, business) and whether there is any deadline. They are explicitly invited to keep the details for the meeting with the lawyer.

The name of the opposing party deserves particular attention. A firm may ask for it at first contact in order to check for conflicts of interest before setting an appointment. It is a piece of information to collect, but without any accompanying description of the dispute.

Some situations cannot wait for the next day’s callback: a hearing scheduled in a few days, an appeal deadline about to expire, a relative held in police custody. Call handling must know how to ask about deadlines and apply a clear rule, for example an immediate transfer to the lawyer designated for these situations.

Conversely, a general enquiry about fees or areas of practice can be answered immediately, using the information published by the firm, without taking up a lawyer’s time.

The caller is often tempted to seek a quick answer: “am I entitled to compensation?”, “can my ex leave with the children?”. The switchboard, whether staffed by an assistant or run by software, must never venture onto this ground. An approximate answer puts the firm’s reputation at stake and may mislead the caller.

The right wording acknowledges the question and directs it to the right place: “that is exactly what the first appointment with Maître X is for; let me offer you a slot” (Maître being the title used for lawyers in France). The caller leaves with a concrete next step rather than an improvised opinion.

Before adopting a phone assistant, a firm should get precise answers: where the transcripts are hosted, who can access them, how long they are kept, how the caller is told that they are talking to an AI and that the call is recorded, and how transfer to a human is triggered. Until these answers are clear, the tool should not be deployed.

Alyas provides answers on some of these questions: hosting in the European Union, announcement of the AI and the recording at the start of the call, answers based on the information you provide, transfer to the number of your choice, transcript and summary of every call in your client area. The other points, such as who has access to the transcripts and how long they are kept, need to be clarified before any rollout. The ten-day free trial lets you judge it on your own instructions.