You're discussing strategy with your lawyer. Maybe it's a divorce. Maybe it's a business dispute. Maybe it's something criminal. These are the most confidential conversations you can have protected by attorney-client privilege.

You're on Zoom because it's convenient. But here's the uncomfortable question lawyers don't always ask:

Does using Zoom waive attorney-client privilege?

The answer is complicated. And worth understanding.

What attorney-client privilege actually protects

Attorney-client privilege means conversations between lawyers and clients are confidential. Courts can't force lawyers to reveal what you discussed. It's one of the strongest legal protections that exists.

But it only works if you maintain confidentiality.

If you discuss legal strategy in a crowded coffee shop where others can hear, privilege might not apply you didn't keep it confidential.

So what about video calls where a tech company processes everything?

How Zoom (and similar platforms) work

When you video chat on Zoom:

Your conversation → Zoom servers → Process it → Your lawyer

Zoom has access to your conversation on their servers. They process it. They store it (temporarily or longer). Their employees could theoretically access it.

Is that maintaining confidentiality? That's the multi-million-dollar question law firms are grappling with.

The legal gray area

Some lawyers argue: Zoom has security measures and signs BAAs (Business Associate Agreements). Good enough.

Other lawyers argue: If a third party can access conversations, even theoretically, that's a vulnerability to privilege.

Courts haven't fully settled this yet. Different jurisdictions might rule differently. It's genuinely uncertain legal territory.

But here's what we know for sure: If there's any doubt about confidentiality, privilege could be challenged.

Real-world legal nightmares

Discovery demands: Opposing counsel demands "all communications about X." Could they subpoena Zoom for your call recordings or metadata?

Data breaches: If Zoom gets hacked and your conversations leak, did you take "reasonable steps" to maintain confidentiality?

Employee access: A Zoom employee with access sees something, reports it. Was privilege broken?

These aren't theoretical. These are real risks lawyers face.

How WebRTC changes the legal equation

WebRTC creates direct connections between lawyer and client:

Your conversation → Directly to your lawyer

No third party in the middle. No company processing calls. No servers with access to content.

This matters legally because:

• You can better argue you maintained confidentiality
• No third party has your communications to subpoena
• Reduced risk of data breaches exposing privileged communications
• Stronger argument that you took reasonable steps to protect privilege

Law firms making the switch

Large corporate firm

Why they switched: Client asked "Can Zoom be subpoenaed for our call?" Couldn't give confident "no."

What they use: Self-hosted WebRTC solution for sensitive client communications.

Result: Stronger privilege protection, client confidence restored.

Criminal defense attorney

Risk level: Client communications could be life-and-death. Privilege absolutely critical.

Solution: WebRTC-based platform for all client video calls. In-person for extremely sensitive matters.

Result: Peace of mind that communications are as protected as possible.

Family law practice

Challenge: Divorce cases involve sensitive financial and personal information. Privacy matters.

Approach: WebRTC for client meetings, traditional platforms only for court appearances where privacy isn't expected anyway.

Result: Better client privacy, reduced liability risk.

The ethics opinions are starting to come

Legal ethics committees are beginning to issue guidance:

General consensus:

• Lawyers must understand their technology
• Must take reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality
• Must assess risks of each platform
• May have duty to use more secure options when available

Translation: "Zoom might be okay" is becoming "you need to consider alternatives for sensitive matters."

When WebRTC makes sense for legal work

High-stakes cases

• Criminal defense
• Major business disputes
• Sensitive family law matters
• Whistleblower representation
• High-profile clients

Sensitive discussions

• Strategy sessions
• Witness preparation
• Settlement negotiations
• Discussions of confidential business information

Risk-averse firms

• Firms with sophisticated clients who ask tough questions
• Practices in jurisdictions with strict privilege rules
• Situations where opposing counsel might challenge privilege

When traditional platforms might be acceptable

Lower-stakes matters

• Initial consultations
• Administrative matters
• Public information discussions
• Matters where confidentiality isn't critical

Court appearances

• Remote hearings (often required to use court-selected platforms)
• Mediations where platform is chosen by mediator
• Depositions where opposing counsel is present anyway

Practical limitations

• Client can't handle WebRTC technology
• Emergency situations requiring immediate communication
• Platforms pre-selected by other parties

Educating clients about risk

Lawyers need to explain to clients:

"When we use Zoom, theoretically..."

• Zoom processes our conversation
• It goes through their servers
• They could be compelled to provide access
• There's a small but non-zero risk to privilege

"When we use WebRTC..."

• Direct connection between us
• No third party processes the call
• Less risk of privilege being compromised
• Stronger confidentiality protection

Let clients make informed decisions about their own risk tolerance.

Practical implementation for law firms

Assess your practice areas: Which cases need maximum privilege protection? Which are lower risk?

Implement tiered approach:

• High-risk: WebRTC only
• Medium-risk: Client choice after explanation
• Low-risk: Any platform fine

Train attorneys: They need to understand the technology and explain it to clients.

Have written policies: Document your approach to privilege protection. Shows "reasonable steps."

Update engagement letters: Consider addressing technology choices in client agreements.

The client perspective

As a client, you have a right to ask your lawyer:

"What platform do you use for video calls?"

"Could those calls be subpoenaed?"

"Are our conversations truly private?"

"What's the most secure option available?"

A good lawyer will give you straight answers and options.

The honest challenges

WebRTC isn't perfect:

• Requires more technical setup
• May have compatibility issues
• Less convenient than mainstream platforms
• Might be harder for clients to use

But consider the alternative: Potentially compromised attorney-client privilege. For many legal matters, that's an unacceptable risk.

The ethical obligation

The model rules of professional conduct require lawyers to:

• Maintain client confidentiality
• Keep up with technology
• Understand risks to confidentiality
• Take reasonable steps to protect communications

Using platforms where third parties process privileged communications? That's questionable on all four counts.

WebRTC isn't the only answer. But it's one answer that reduces risk.

What courts might eventually say

We don't know yet how courts will rule on privilege with platforms like Zoom. But historically:

Courts have said privilege is waived when:

• Others could hear/see the communication
• Reasonable steps weren't taken to protect it
• Third parties had access

Could that apply to Zoom? Maybe. Do you want to be the test case?

The bottom line for legal professionals

Attorney-client privilege is fundamental to legal practice. Anything that risks it should be taken seriously.

Traditional video platforms pose risks:

• Third parties process communications
• Potential for subpoena
• Data breach exposure
• Privilege challenges possible

WebRTC reduces those risks:

• Direct connections
• No third-party processing
• Stronger privilege argument
• Better confidentiality maintenance

Is the extra effort worth it? For sensitive legal matters, probably yes.

Because the alternative having a court rule that your use of Zoom waived privilege is a nightmare scenario no lawyer wants to face.

For clients: What you should know

Your conversations with your lawyer are supposed to be sacred. Protected. Confidential.

Before your next video call with your lawyer, ask:

• What platform do we use?
• How is confidentiality protected?
• Could anyone else access our calls?
• Is there a more secure option?

You have a right to know. And your lawyer has a duty to explain.

Because when you're discussing legal matters, confidentiality isn't optional it's essential.

---

For secure file transfers: Try NotesQR direct connections without server storage.

Questions? Connect on LinkedIn or X.com.