File notes and AI confidentiality: what a client conference gives away in ChatGPT or Claude.

A file note is the rawest document in a law firm. It records what the client said before anyone decided what mattered, including things the client would not want written anywhere, and the solicitor’s impressions of the client. It is also exactly the kind of rough dictation staff paste into ChatGPT or Claude to turn into prose. This page marks every item in a conference note that rule 9 and privilege protect, and shows how the same note is written up on Ermos inside the firm.

The file note of a client conference

Dictated or typed straight after a client meeting, for the file, and later relied on if instructions are disputed.

File note
Matter: Soto, M. v Greystone Property Group¹ · EV / HR⁸ · 11 September 2026, 2.00pm to 3.10pm, in person

Client attended with her sister, Camila Soto, who stayed for the whole conference.²

Instructions. Client confirms she wants to pursue the general protections claim. Does not want to return to Greystone under any circumstances. Would settle for a payment and a statement of service; says the money matters less than the reference.³

Facts not in the letter. Client says that in July she forwarded three internal emails about the fit-out capitalisation to her personal Gmail “in case they tried something”. She still has them. I advised that this may be a breach of her employment contract and could be raised against her, and that she should not forward or delete anything further pending advice. She was upset about this.⁴

Client disclosed that she is currently seeing a psychologist fortnightly and is on sertraline. Her GP is Dr Anand at Coogee Family Practice. She asked that her husband not be told the extent of the medication; he is not aware she is seeing a psychologist.⁵

Client mentioned that Alan Whitcombe (CFO) had, in 2024, asked her to delay recognising a loss on the Parramatta project until after the board meeting. She did not act on it. She has a text message. This may be relevant to the workplace-right argument and to credit, but it is also a matter she may be reluctant to raise publicly.⁶

Impressions. Client is articulate and credible on the sequence of events but became tearful discussing the “convenient” remark. Sister is forceful and interjected several times; I would prefer to take future instructions from the client alone.⁷

Next steps. Lodge application by 25 September. Request personnel file. Obtain Gmail emails on a privileged basis before advising further.

An invented file note. Hover or tap any highlighted item for the analysis; the full list is below.

What leaves the firm

The matter

The parties, named. Everything below becomes identifiable. Rule 9 confidentiality guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	Transmitted to the provider, generally offshore on personal plans
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

A third person in the room

The sister’s name and presence. Her personal information, and a fact that bears on whether privilege attaches to what was said. Legal privilege guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	A third person’s details transmitted
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

Instructions

What the client wants and what she will accept. Privileged, and the client’s whole negotiating position in two sentences. Legal privilege guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	Privileged instructions transmitted; on consumer tiers they can train future models
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

A damaging admission and the advice on it

That the client took company emails, and the solicitor’s warning about it. The most sensitive exchange in the matter, which is exactly what privilege exists to keep inside the firm. Legal privilege guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	The most damaging exchange in the file now outside the firm
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

Health, medication, a treating doctor and a secret from her husband

Sensitive health information under the Privacy Act, a named practitioner, and a confidence within the family. None of it needed to write up a file note. Privacy Act guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	Sensitive health information and a family confidence transmitted
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

An allegation about a third party

That a named executive asked for a loss to be delayed. An allegation about someone who is not a party, recorded before anyone has decided whether to use it. Rule 9 confidentiality guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	An allegation about a named executive transmitted
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

The solicitor’s impressions

Candid notes on the client’s credibility and demeanour and on the sister. Written for the file, never for the client, and now on a third party’s servers. Rule 9 confidentiality guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	Your private impressions transmitted
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

The solicitors

Initials that identify the partner and the solicitor, and tie the note to people bound by rule 9 and supervised under rule 37. Supervising AI guide.

Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	Transmitted, and the leak is traceable to you
Ermos Edge	Stays on your instance in Australia; leaves only inside a permitted excerpt, per question, to the named provider
Ermos Dominion	Stays on the unit in your office

What happens in Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)

The whole document is transmitted to the provider’s servers. On personal plans the user cannot choose where it is stored or processed, and for the major providers that has generally meant outside Australia, under that country’s legal process. Some business plans offer storage in Australia, but the provider still receives the content.
On consumer tiers, prompts can be retained and used to train future models.
The provider’s staff and systems can reach the content under the provider’s own policies.
Once sent, the firm no longer controls it. Retention and deletion happen on the provider’s terms.

The same document on Ermos

Ermos Dominion

The document is drafted on a unit in your office, from your own templates and the matter file. Every marked item stays on the unit, which keeps working with the internet switched off. Nothing in it is transmitted to an AI provider, so there is no disclosure to analyse: the confidentiality work is the same as for your file server.

Ermos Edge

Your documents, the index and your access boundaries stay on your own instance in an Australian data centre. When a staff member asks for this draft, only their question and the excerpts they are permitted to see go to a named Australian provider, who is contractually barred from keeping the content or training any model on it. Nothing is processed outside Australia.

	Frontier Models (ChatGPT, Claude)	Ermos Edge	Ermos Dominion
Where the document is processed	Provider servers, generally offshore on personal plans	Your instance in an Australian data centre; answers generated in Australia	The unit in your office
Who can read it	Provider staff and systems, under policy	Your staff, within the boundaries you set. The named Australian provider processes only permitted excerpts, under contract, and keeps nothing	Your staff only
Is it kept	On the provider’s terms	Kept on your instance; the provider is barred from retaining it	Stays on the unit
Can it train a model	On consumer tiers, yes	No, by contract	Only your own unit learns from it, on your hardware

Part of AI data leakage in law firms. See how this works in practice: Matter work on Ermos.

Common questions

Do ChatGPT and Claude use the information in a file note of a client conference?

Yes, both products send whatever is pasted in to the AI company's servers to be processed. As at October 2026, whether a conversation on a personal plan (ChatGPT Free, Plus or Pro; Claude Free, Pro or Max) can be used to train the models depends on a setting each user controls. Business plans (ChatGPT Business and Enterprise, Claude Team and Enterprise) and the developer APIs sit under commercial terms, and OpenAI and Anthropic each say they do not train on that content by default (OpenAI, Anthropic). On either product, the thumbs up and thumbs down buttons can send a whole conversation back for training. A file note holds the client's instructions, a damaging admission and the solicitor's candid impressions.

Is it safe to paste a file note of a client conference into ChatGPT or Claude if we take the names out?

No, because a file note still describes one client after the names go. Removing names rarely makes a document anonymous. Information stays personal information while the person is reasonably identifiable, and the OAIC warns that information can be at risk of re-identification even when it has been de-identified or anonymised. The sister in the room, the medication and the allegation about an executive identify the matter, and the health details are sensitive under any name. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) recommends in its guidance on commercially available AI products that organisations do not enter personal information, and particularly sensitive information, into publicly available generative AI tools, because of the significant and complex privacy risks.

Is it safe to use an AI note-taker or meeting recorder for a file note of a client conference?

Not until the practice has checked the vendor's terms and settings. If the tool is run by an outside vendor, the audio or transcript goes to that vendor, so the questions are where it is stored, whether it trains a model and who can review it. The OAIC's guidance also tells organisations to review carefully the terms and settings that will apply to their use of any AI product. A recording of this conference would capture the medication, the admission about the forwarded emails and the sister's interjections in the client's own voice.

How can a law firm use AI for a file note of a client conference without sending it to ChatGPT or Claude?

Ermos is built so the document stays under your control. On the Dominion AI unit it is drafted inside your office and none of it is sent to an AI provider. On Ermos Edge your documents and index stay on your own instance in an Australian data centre, and only the question and the excerpts the user is permitted to see go to a named Australian provider that is contractually barred from keeping them or training any model on them. The file note is drafted from the solicitor's own notes of the conference and the firm's own file note template. The solicitor checks and signs it before it goes on the matter file.

Is a file note privileged?

A note recording communications between solicitor and client made for the dominant purpose of legal advice is the classic subject of privilege. Whether the sister's presence affects that is a question on the facts, which is one more reason the note belongs inside the firm until someone has considered it.

Staff use AI to turn dictation into prose. Is that the problem?

The use is fine; the destination is the problem. On an Ermos unit the dictation is written up on hardware in your office and the note never leaves. On Edge it stays on your own instance in Australia, and only permitted excerpts go, per question, to a named Australian provider under contract.

What about the detail that was never needed?

A file note records more than any one task requires, which is why pasting the whole thing to fix the prose leaks the medication, the doctor and the family confidence along with it. Inside the firm, recording everything is good practice. Outside it, every surplus line is a separate disclosure.

See Dominion answering from your own documents.

A demonstration takes 30 minutes, uses no client data, and comes with no obligation.

Book a demo

Keep reading

AI data leakage in law firms AI for law firms The Law Society AI guidance All professions