Why a Meeting Bot Disrupts a Client Conversation

In a client conversation, what matters is who is listening and where the spoken word goes. A meeting bot touches both questions. This article explains the technology and separates what is disruptive about a bot from what the law says.

What is a meeting bot technically?

A meeting bot is software that joins a call through the conferencing platform as a participant of its own and receives the audio there. To everyone else it appears as one more name in the call. Microsoft describes such bots for Teams as applications that take part in calls and meetings and can get access to real-time audio and video streams.

The bot runs as a service on a server, not in the meeting window on the firm's computer. For Teams bots with direct media access, the media flows to the virtual machine that accepted the call. In production, that machine runs in Azure. Other platforms and vendors handle the details differently. What they have in common is that the vendor receives the conversation on its servers.

Why does a bot disrupt a confidential conversation?

It disrupts because the client sees that something other than the firm is attached to the conversation. Someone discussing a voluntary tax correction, a separation or a cash-flow problem expects their advisor and perhaps a colleague, not an unknown name in the participant list. Questions arise at once: who is that, and where does what I say go? A sound contract with the vendor does little to change that, because the client does not see it.

Then there is the sequence. If the firm has not asked beforehand, the client learns about the capture from an entry in the participant list instead of from their advisor. That costs trust before the conversation has started. So far this is about perception. The legal question has to be answered separately.

Does a meeting bot violate § 203 StGB?

Not per se. § 203(3) of the German Criminal Code (StGB) allows professionals bound by secrecy to disclose secrets to persons who assist in their professional work, to the extent necessary for that assistance. A bot vendor can be such an assisting person. Under para. 4, however, the professional commits an offence if an assisting person discloses a secret without authorisation and the professional has not ensured that this person was bound to secrecy.

The professional statutes fill this in: § 62a of the Tax Advisory Act (StBerG) for tax advisors, § 43e of the Federal Lawyers' Act (BRAO) for lawyers and § 50a of the Public Accountants Act (WPO) for auditors. They require careful selection and a contract in text form that binds the provider to secrecy. According to the FAQ of the German Federal Chamber of Tax Advisors (BStBK), this has to happen before the AI vendor gains knowledge of the data. These duties apply to the firm with every service provider, bot or no bot.

What path does the conversation take with a bot?

It runs through the conferencing platform to the servers on which the bot is operated, and from there into further processing. That includes conversion to text and summarisation. Several companies can be part of this chain: the platform, the bot operator and other services.

The firm has to know every stage. § 62a(3) StBerG requires the contract to state whether the provider may bring in other persons, and to bind those persons in text form. If services are provided abroad, para. 4 generally requires the protection of secrets there to be comparable to protection in Germany. The BStBK recommends European vendors or data centres in the EU.

The platform sets rules as well. Microsoft prohibits applications from recording or persisting content through its media interface without first reporting the recording status. Whether a vendor follows such rules belongs in the review.

What must the firm check with a bot?

It checks the vendor like any service provider, and additionally everything that follows from joining through the platform.

An external participant's assistant also captures the conversation. The firm settles this before the start and removes the bot if not everyone agrees. More criteria are in the article What should I check when choosing a vendor?

What does on-device capture change, and what not?

It changes who is visibly in the call and the capture path. The duty to obtain consent remains. With TaxMeet (Next Intelligence GmbH, Berlin), no meeting bot joins the conversation and capture happens per participant on the device. The extra name in the call disappears.

Consent remains the firm's job. § 201 StGB makes the unauthorised recording of the privately spoken word a criminal offence, and the BStBK requires prior consent from everyone involved. Consent given afterwards is not sufficient. Because the conferencing platform shows no notice of its own with this kind of capture, the question before the start is the only signal to the client. If anyone declines, the conversation goes ahead without recording. Details are in the article May an AI tool transcribe client meetings?

The vendor also remains a service provider. Capture happens on the device, processing then happens on servers. That is different from the offline use the BStBK prefers for dictation AI. The firm therefore checks secrecy, data processing and the data path against the same table. TaxMeet is designed for § 203 StGB and executes nothing without human approval. That does not replace the firm's own review.

A missing bot also says nothing on its own about the data path. With Realtime Media Streams, Zoom describes a way for apps to receive audio from meetings without a bot participant. The firm therefore asks of every tool who receives the conversation. How TaxMeet works is shown on the product page. What applies when an AI assistant later accesses meeting data is explained in MCP for law and tax firms.