The short version
- Asking everyone in the room is the simplest and most respectful path, and it works in every state. Ask your parent first, then the clinician and anyone else present.
- Federal law and most states are “one-party consent”: you may record a conversation you take part in. Ten states are stricter for in-person conversations: everyone must agree (in Oregon, everyone must be told). Five more have mixed or unsettled rules. Both lists are below.
- The rule for in-person conversations is not always the rule for phone calls, even in the same state.
- Clinics can have their own policies about recording. Ask at the front desk before the visit.
One-party and all-party consent
Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), a person who takes part in a conversation may generally record it, unless they do it to commit a crime or a civil wrong. Most states follow that one-party rule. The states below are stricter for in-person conversations: they require everyone’s consent, or at least that everyone be told.
Most of these laws apply to private conversations, where people reasonably expect not to be recorded, and many are aimed at secret recording. An exam room or a lawyer’s office is the kind of place where people expect privacy, so exceptions for public places are unlikely to help you. Penalties can include criminal charges and civil lawsuits.
States that generally require everyone’s consent
For in-person (oral) conversations. “RCFP guide” is the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Reporter’s Recording Guide, which summarizes each state’s law.
| State | Law and sources | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code § 632statute · RCFP guide | Covers “confidential communications,” where a party reasonably expects not to be overheard or recorded. Conversations in public places, or where people could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded, fall outside it. Violations carry civil as well as criminal liability. |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 934.03statute · RCFP guide | Applies where the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation. Public meetings are excluded. |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2statute · RCFP guide | Covers “private conversations” recorded in a “surreptitious” manner without all parties’ consent. Illinois rewrote this law in 2014 after courts struck down an earlier version, so older summaries may describe the old text. |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(c)(3)statute · RCFP guide | Applies to “private conversations,” meaning those where the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy (Maryland’s highest court, Agnew v. State, 2018). |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99statute · RCFP guide | Aimed at secret recording. The state’s highest court has said recording is not covered when everyone knows about it (Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, 2021). Applies in private and public settings. |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c)statute · RCFP guide | The statute reaches recording with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties; many guides say “consent.” It excepts people who were warned they were being recorded, public officials performing official duties, and speakers at public meetings. Sources describe it differently. |
| New Hampshire | N.H. RSA 570-A:2statute · RCFP guide | Applies to conversations where the speaker reasonably expects not to be intercepted. Recording as a party, or with one party’s consent, is a misdemeanor rather than a felony (RSA 570-A:2, I-a), so it is still an offense. |
| Oregon | Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(1)(c)statute · RCFP guide | In-person: every participant must be “specifically informed” that the conversation is being recorded. Exceptions include an unconcealed device at certain public or semi-public meetings, and private meetings where everyone knew or should have known. Phone calls differ: one party’s consent is enough. A 2023 Ninth Circuit panel ruling that went the other way was reversed by the full court in January 2025 (Project Veritas v. Schmidt), and the U.S. Supreme Court declined review in October 2025. Some summaries have not caught up. |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5702, 5703, 5704(4)statute · RCFP guide | Applies to “oral communications,” where the speaker reasonably expects not to be recorded. Courts have found consent where people knew, or should have known, they were being recorded. |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030statute · RCFP guide | Applies to “private conversations.” Consent counts as given when one participant announces to the others, in a reasonably effective way, that recording is about to begin; if the conversation is recorded, the announcement should be too (§ 9.73.030(3)). Courts look at the setting and whether others are present. |
Often listed as all-party, but different for in-person conversations
Surveys disagree about these states. Where sources differ, we say so, and the safe answer is the same: ask everyone.
| State | Law and sources | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187, 53a-189 (criminal); § 52-570d (civil)criminal · civil · RCFP guide | The criminal eavesdropping law reaches recording by a person not present without the consent of at least one party, so a participant recording an in-person conversation appears to be one-party. The civil statute requires all-party consent (or a warning) for recording telephone calls. Many surveys list Connecticut as all-party because of that phone rule. |
| Delaware | Del. Code tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4); § 2402(c)(4)privacy law · wiretap law · RCFP guide | Two statutes conflict. The privacy statute requires consent of all parties to record a private communication; the wiretap statute allows recording with one party’s consent. A 1975 federal decision let a party record their own conversation, but it does not bind Delaware courts. The Reporters Committee advises following the stricter rule; some surveys list Delaware as one-party. |
| Hawaii | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A); § 711-1111statute · RCFP guide | One-party for oral conversations generally. Separately, using a device in a “private place” to record sounds not otherwise audible outside it requires consent of everyone entitled to privacy there (§ 711-1111). Whether that reaches a participant’s own recording is unclear. |
| Michigan | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539cstatute · RCFP guide | The eavesdropping law bars secretly listening to a private conversation without the consent of all parties. Whether it covers a participant recording their own conversation is disputed: a 1982 Michigan Court of Appeals decision (Sullivan v. Gray) says no, and the Michigan Supreme Court has not ruled. Some surveys list Michigan as all-party. |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620, 200.650statutes · RCFP guide | Phone calls: all-party consent, as the Nevada Supreme Court has read the statute. In-person private conversations: unlawful to record surreptitiously unless one of the parties authorizes it (§ 200.650), so one-party. Many surveys list Nevada as all-party because of the phone rule. |
Every other state not listed here is generally described as one-party for in-person conversations, but some have special rules for private places or for hidden cameras. If your situation is unusual, check your state’s statute or ask a lawyer.
A practical way to ask
- Ask your parent first, before the day, and say why: “so we can all remember what was said.” It is their appointment.
- Check the clinic’s policy. Some clinics have rules or forms about recording; the front desk can tell you.
- Ask everyone in the room at the start, with the phone in view: “Is it okay if I record this so my family can help me?”
- Get the yes on the recording itself, in each person’s own voice.
- If anyone says no, don’t record. Take notes instead.
Phone calls between people in different states can fall under either state’s rule. It is safest to follow the stricter one, or simply to ask.
Sources and how we checked
We read each state’s statute and the Reporters Committee’s state summaries, and checked recent court decisions where they changed the picture (Oregon and Michigan in particular). Where the sources disagree, we say so in the Notes column. If you spot something out of date, tell us through the support form.
- Reporter’s Recording Guide, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (state-by-state summaries)
- Recording Phone Calls and Conversations: 50-State Survey, Justia (further reading)
- The statutes linked in each row, and Project Veritas v. Schmidt, 125 F.4th 929 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), for Oregon
Checked: November 2026