Can You Record a Meeting With HR? State by State

By David M. · Published 11 September 2026 · Verified 10 September 2026 · Editorial policy

Applies to employees in the United States. Covers recording a meeting with HR or a manager, openly or secretly, in person or on a video call, under federal law and the laws of all 50 states and DC.

Not legal advice. The rules change from state to state, and federal courts do not all read them the same way. No page can cover your own facts, so if a deadline or a decision is close, talk to an employment lawyer where you live.

Under federal law, yes, if you are in the meeting. But some states need everyone’s consent or knowledge, including California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington. Legal is also not the same as safe. A federal appeals court upheld a firing for secret recording in Ohio, where it was legal and no policy banned it. Ask first.

This page covers the law in every state and DC, the job risk even where recording is legal, and video calls across state lines. It ends with two scripts: how to ask to record, and what to send if HR says no. The short version is in the recording section of the signs of a toxic work environment.

Is it legal to record a meeting with HR?

Under federal law, yes, if you take part in it. The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), allows a recording made by a person “where such person is a party to the communication.” You are a party to any meeting you sit in.

There is one exception. The recording cannot be made “for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.” A tortious act is a civil wrong you could be sued for. Recording to keep an accurate account of what HR said is not that.

Federal law sets the minimum. A state can set a stricter rule, and its rule applies to recording done there. So the answer comes from state law. It turns on two things: where each person in the meeting is, and the exact words of that state’s statute.

In a one-party state, any person in the conversation can record it, so your own consent is enough. In an all-party state, everyone in the conversation must consent, or in some states must know.

Which states need everyone’s consent to record?

Going by the words of each statute, these states need everyone in a face-to-face conversation to agree to, or know about, a recording: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Two of them have limits. Oregon’s stricter rule covers in-person talks only; its phone rule is one-party. Montana’s covers hidden devices, so an open recording falls outside it.

Three more states are unsettled. Delaware has two statutes that conflict. One lets a party record (Del. Code tit. 11, § 2402(c)(4)). The other bans intercepting a private conversation “without the consent of all parties thereto” (§ 1335(a)(4)). A 1975 federal trial court sided with the one-party rule, according to RCFP’s Delaware guide.

Michigan’s statute reads as all-party. It covers recording “the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse” (MCL 750.539a). RCFP reports that a 1982 state appeals court decision lets a participant record. It adds that the Michigan Supreme Court “has not yet addressed the issue.”

Missouri’s in-person rule is also unsettled, for reasons explained below the table. Treat all three states as all-party until a court settles it.

Connecticut and Nevada split the other way. Their in-person rule is one-party, but their phone rule needs everyone’s consent. Connecticut’s phone rule is a civil statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d. Nevada’s comes from a 1998 decision of its Supreme Court, as RCFP’s Nevada guide reports.

Does telling people you are recording count as consent?

In some states, yes, as far as the criminal law goes. These statutes turn on secrecy or notice, not on anyone saying yes:

Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania word their rules around consent. There, announcing is not clearly enough, so get a spoken yes. In every state, company policy is a separate question. Carrying on after HR says no can still be treated as insubordination, which means refusing a direct instruction.

Does it matter whether the meeting is private?

Yes, in several of the all-party states. Their statutes only protect talks that are private or confidential. California’s excludes any situation where people “may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded” (§ 632(c)). Florida’s covers speech by a person “exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception” (Fla. Stat. § 934.02(2)).

Maryland’s statute covers words spoken “in private conversation.” Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington have similar limits. Massachusetts has none. There, “oral communication” simply “means speech.” The only test is whether the recording was secret.

So a manager shouting at you across an open office may fall outside these laws. A closed-door meeting with HR is the kind of talk they were written for. Hawaii is one-party, but a separate law bans recording devices in a “private place” without consent (HRS § 711-1111). The statute does not say whether a closed HR office counts, and no ruling on the point turned up.

What does each state’s recording law say?

The table shows the rule for you, as a participant, recording a face-to-face talk. Where the phone rule is different, the row says so. The quoted words are the ones that decide the question. Each statute is linked.

“Unofficial copy” means the link goes to a free copy on another site, because the state’s own site would not load or is not free to read. Treat its wording as the law on the date that copy was last updated. Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma are paraphrased from unofficial copies that could not be checked against the state’s own site.

Indiana, New Mexico and Vermont have no law that clearly reaches you recording a face-to-face talk you are part of. Indiana and New Mexico only cover calls and messages. RCFP reported in June 2020 that Vermont has no recording statute. The federal one-party rule still applies in each of them.

Missouri is the odd one. Its in-person clause names devices that transmit “by radio.” A phone is a radio transmitter, but no ruling turned up on whether a voice memo saved on the phone counts. RCFP’s Missouri guide advises that “the cautious approach would be to get consent of all parties.” Follow that advice.

Old Illinois cases need care. Illinois rewrote its law from 30 December 2014 (P.A. 98-1142) to add the “surreptitious” and “private conversation” tests. In Argyropoulos v. City of Alton (7th Cir. 2008), a secret recording of a meeting broke the older Illinois law. The court held it was not protected and was a fair reason to act against the employee. That case applied the broader pre-2014 statute, so check the date of any Illinois case you read.

Can you be fired for recording a meeting with HR?

Yes, even where the recording was legal. Courts treat these as two separate questions: whether a recording broke the law, and whether it can cost you your job.

In Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall (6th Cir. 2025), an Ohio employee secretly recorded meetings at work and was fired. She sued under Title VII, a federal law against job discrimination, and under Ohio law. She said the firing was payback for complaining. The court accepted that the employer “had no official policy prohibiting recording.” It also accepted that secret recording by a party is legal in Ohio.

She lost anyway. The court held that “the lack of an official policy or law prohibiting the behavior does not itself demonstrate pretext.” Pretext means the stated reason is a cover for the real one. The court added: “An employer may terminate an employee for creating legal risk for the company.” Her recordings held patients’ names and care details, which raised a risk under HIPAA, the federal health privacy law.

Bashaw argued that her recordings were no different from taking written notes home. The court said that even if that were true, it did not show the employer’s reasons were a cover.

A written policy makes the employer’s case easier. In Spagnolia v. Charter Communications (10th Cir. 2024), a Colorado worker was fired under a company rule against recording. Colorado is one-party. The court said “Charter’s company policy is an independent basis for termination.” The decision is unpublished, which means it does not bind later courts. It still shows how the argument runs.

Watch what the recording picks up, too. A meeting that touches on other employees’ health, discipline or clients puts their private details on your phone. That is the same kind of risk the Bashaw court accepted as a reason to fire.

If you were fired soon after recording, and also after a complaint, the fight is over which one was the real reason. See how to prove workplace retaliation for the test courts use.

Does federal labor law protect you if you record at work?

Sometimes. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects “concerted activity,” which means employees acting together about pay or working conditions. You do not need a union. The full test is in what protected concerted activity covers.

That protection can reach recordings. In Whole Foods Market Group (2015), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) said recording at work is protected “if employees are acting in concert for their mutual aid and protection and no overriding employer interest is present.” Its examples included “recording evidence to preserve it for later use in administrative or judicial forums in employment-related actions.”

Courts went along with the Board, within limits. In T-Mobile USA v. NLRB (5th Cir. 2017), a recording ban was unlawful because “a reasonable employee would construe the recording policy to prohibit forms of protected activity.” When the Second Circuit upheld the Whole Foods ruling in 2017, in a short order that does not bind later cases, it added a warning: “It should be possible to craft a policy that places some limits on recording audio and video in the work place that does not violate the Act.”

A secret recording can be protected too, but only in the right conditions. In Stephens Media v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2012), a worker secretly recorded a meeting. He wanted proof of a feared breach of his right to have a union representative there. The court upheld the finding that this was protected.

That ruling rested on three grounds. Board precedent has no rule that a secret recording is always unprotected. The company “had no policy in effect prohibiting audio recordings.” And “it is undisputed that the recording was not unlawful under state or local law.” Read Stephens Media next to Bashaw. The same act can be protected or a firing offense, depending on the policy, the state law, and whether it was done with or for coworkers.

Where does the labor board stand on recording bans in 2026?

The test keeps changing. In Boeing (2017), the Board put “no-camera rules, in general,” in the group of rules it will find lawful. In Stericycle (2023), it overruled Boeing.

Under Stericycle, a work rule that could stop workers acting together “is presumptively unlawful.” The employer can save it only by proving a “legitimate and substantial business interest” that a “more narrowly tailored rule” could not serve. In plain words: a broad ban on recording at work starts out presumed unlawful. The employer must show a real business need that a narrower rule could not meet.

Two 2026 memos from the NLRB’s General Counsel, the agency’s chief prosecutor, point the other way. GC 26-03 (27 February 2026) told regional offices that cases attacking a rule on paper alone, with no sign it was enforced, are not a good use of the agency’s limited resources. Regions should focus on rules that are clear violations, such as “outright bans on discussing wages among employees.”

GC 26-04 (26 August 2026) says the General Counsel is “Arguing to overturn Stericycle” in a case called Honeywell International. Meanwhile, regions “should continue to investigate the cases and, if justified, pursue prosecution according to extant Board law.” A Proskauer summary (3 September 2026) reports that the Senate has confirmed a third Republican Board member. That is the number needed to overturn past decisions.

The table lists the court and labor board decisions above and what each means for recording.

Are supervisors and government workers protected?

Not by the NLRA. Its definition of “employee” leaves out “any individual employed as a supervisor” (29 U.S.C. § 152(3)). It also leaves out farm workers, household workers and independent contractors. A supervisor is someone with power to hire, discipline, or “effectively to recommend such action,” using their own judgment (§ 152(11)).

The Act’s definition of “employer” also leaves out federal, state and local government (§ 152(2)). So if you manage people, or work for a public body, labor law gives your recording no cover. In Montana, the knowledge rule does not cover recordings of public employees “in the performance of official duty” (MCA 45-8-213).

What if you are in a union?

Ask for a union representative instead of recording. Under NLRB v. J. Weingarten (1975), you can have one at an investigatory interview where “the employee reasonably believes the investigation will result in disciplinary action.” The NLRB’s Weingarten page, read on 10 September 2026, says “only union-represented employees have this right.” The representative can take notes for you. More on this is in your rights during an HR investigation.

Recording formal union meetings with management carries a separate risk. GC 25-07 (25 June 2025) argues that secretly recording a bargaining session is a “per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.” Per se means automatic, with no further proof needed. The memo also cites a 1985 Board ruling that neither side can insist on recording a grievance meeting. GC 26-03 confirmed that GC 25-07 is still in effect.

Can you record a Zoom or Teams meeting with HR?

The same rules apply, but more than one state may be involved. If you are in Texas and the HR manager is in California, two laws are in play. No national rule says which one wins.

The case most often cited is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (Cal. 2006). A Georgia brokerage recorded calls with clients in California. Georgia is one-party; California is not. California’s Supreme Court found “a true conflict between California and Georgia law.” It applied California law, to protect “the degree of privacy afforded to California residents by California law.” It held back on damages for calls recorded before the ruling.

The safe rule follows from that. If anyone on the call is in an all-party state, follow that state’s rule. This is a cautious reading of one California decision, not a national rule. Connecticut and Nevada have all-party phone rules. No ruling turned up on whether a video call counts as a phone call there, so treat it as one.

The meeting app itself may announce the recording. Microsoft’s Teams support page says: “When you start recording a meeting, everyone will be notified automatically.” A phone voice memo, a second device or a separate app does not go through the meeting software, so the software does not announce it.

Oregon has a video-call exception. Its in-person notice rule does not apply where the others “knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made” and the talk takes place “through a video conferencing program” (ORS 165.540(6)(a)). A second exception covers a participant who records a video call “with the intent to capture alleged unlawful activity.” One way to qualify is a reasonable belief that the recording may be used “as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding” (ORS 165.540(6)(b)).

What if an AI notetaker records the meeting?

An always-on app or AI notetaker can record a disciplinary meeting without anyone deciding to. Several all-party statutes need intent. California’s covers a person who acts “intentionally” (§ 632(a)). Illinois’s covers one who acts “knowingly and intentionally” (720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)). An accidental capture may fall outside those words.

Using it afterward is a separate act. Illinois makes it a crime to use or share information that a person “knows or reasonably should know was obtained from a private conversation” in breach of the law (720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(5)). So do not share an accidental recording. Do not delete it either, for the reasons in the section on recordings you already have. Ask a lawyer what to do with it.

What if HR records you?

In a one-party state, HR can record a meeting it takes part in without telling you. Federal law (§ 2511(2)(d)) and the one-party states treat HR as a party, just like you.

In an all-party state, a secret recording by HR breaks the same law you would. The civil damages then run in your favor. California allows “Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation” (Penal Code § 637.2). Massachusetts allows “$100 per day for each day of violation or $1000, whichever is higher” (G.L. c. 272, § 99(Q)). Washington allows actual damages or, instead, “one hundred dollars a day” up to one thousand dollars (RCW 9.73.060).

Nebraska lets employers monitor work phone lines at random, “as long as reasonable notice of the policy of random monitoring is provided to their employees” (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(a)). At the federal level, the NLRB’s General Counsel withdrew the agency’s memo against intrusive electronic monitoring of workers (GC 23-02) on 14 February 2025, in GC 25-05.

What you can claim when HR records you in secret depends on where you are.

How do you ask to record, and what if HR says no?

Ask openly, at the very start, before anything else is said. It works in every state. Consent meets every all-party statute. An open announcement meets the secrecy and notice statutes in Massachusetts, Oregon, Montana and Washington.

If HR says no, stop. In California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon (in person), Pennsylvania and Washington, recording in secret after a refusal breaks the law. In Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, whose laws turn on consent, recording openly over the refusal can too. Delaware, Michigan and Missouri (in person) may be the same. In every state, recording anyway gives the employer a ground for discipline: you ignored a direct instruction.

At the start, before anything else:

Before we start, I'd like to record this
meeting on my phone so I have an accurate
record. Is everyone OK with that?

If they agree, once the recording is on:

It's [date], about [time]. Present are
[names]. Everyone has agreed to this
being recorded.

If they say no:

Understood. I'll take notes instead, and
I'll send a short summary afterward so we
have the same record. Could you also send
me a copy of the policy on recording?

Then send a short summary email the same day. Send it to the HR person, from your work account, within hours. Its job is to turn your notes into a shared record that HR has had the chance to correct.

Subject: Summary of today's meeting, [date]

Hi [name],

Thank you for meeting with me today,
[date], [start]–[end], [room or Zoom].
Present: [names and titles].

I asked to record the meeting and you
declined, so I took notes. My summary:

1. [What HR said the meeting was about.]
2. [Each allegation or concern, as stated.]
3. [What I said in response.]
4. [Any deadline, next step or decision.]

Where I have quoted someone, it is word for
word from my notes. Everything else is my
summary.

If anything here is wrong or missing,
please tell me by [date] so we have an
accurate record.

[Name]

Forwarding company information to a personal account is a separate risk. See when taking your employer’s documents is protected. Keep your own copy of your notes. For a running record over weeks, use the same-day log in how to document workplace mistreatment so it holds up.

The same two scripts fit other meetings where you may want a recording. Use them for a meeting about a written warning at work or about a performance improvement plan.

Why do notes and a summary email help?

Because people remember little of a conversation, even soon after. In a 2024 study in Memory & Cognition, 60 university students aged 18 to 25 held five-minute group conversations. Twenty minutes later, they wrote down what they remembered. Speakers recalled 29.83% of what was said. The people spoken to recalled 22.86%. What they did recall was mostly right: only 4.15% of recalled points were wrong.

A 2023 study in Cognitive Science found that people who wrote notes soon after a conversation recalled more details, and just as accurately. After a week, “only 4.7% of the details of the conversation were recalled by both of the partners.” Neither study took place at work. Both suggest two people leaving the same HR meeting will remember different things. That is why the email asks HR to correct it.

What if you already recorded the meeting?

Keep it, but do not share it around. Before you hand it to anyone, tell a lawyer that it exists. If you file a charge, tell the EEOC investigator too. The steps for a charge are in how to file an EEOC complaint.

Do not delete it once a dispute looks likely. Under federal court rules, a judge can act if information “that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it” (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)). A finding of “intent to deprive” brings worse penalties.

Federal law does not block a lawful recording as evidence. Its evidence ban applies only “if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter” (18 U.S.C. § 2515). A participant’s own recording does not break that chapter.

Some states shut out recordings that broke their law. California’s are “not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding” (§ 632(d)). Washington’s are “inadmissible in any civil or criminal case” in its courts (RCW 9.73.050). Florida keeps them out of “any trial, hearing, or other proceeding” (Fla. Stat. § 934.06). No ruling turned up on whether a federal court hearing a discrimination case would exclude a recording that broke a state all-party law. Ask a lawyer.

An unlawful recording can also cost you. Title VII protects you for opposing discrimination and for taking part in a charge (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)). But the EEOC’s 2016 retaliation guidance says opposition “will not be considered reasonable if it involves an unlawful act.”

Back pay can shrink too. Under McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. (1995), misconduct the employer finds out about later can cut off back pay at “the date the new information was discovered.” The employer must prove the misconduct was so serious “that the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds alone.” A secret recording revealed in a lawsuit can be that misconduct.

Which choice fits your situation?

The default is the same everywhere. Ask openly. If HR says no, stop, take notes and send the same-day email. That route is lawful in every state and gives no ground for an insubordination claim. On a call across states, follow the strictest state’s rule. If you are in a union, ask for a representative instead of recording.

Secret recording is the only choice that needs a real decision. Only think about it if all four of these are true:

1. Every person in the meeting is in a state where one-party consent covers that kind of talk. Check the table for each person’s location.
2. No written policy bans recording, or you accept that you could be fired for it anyway, as in Bashaw.
3. The meeting will not cover other people’s health, discipline or client details.
4. It is not a union bargaining or grievance meeting.

Secret recording is the wrong choice if anyone is in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon (in person), Pennsylvania or Washington, or in Delaware, Michigan or Missouri (in person). On a call, add Connecticut and Nevada. It is also wrong if you supervise others or work for a government body, because labor law gives you no cover.

Do not count on labor law to save your job. Stephens Media turned on three facts: no policy, a recording legal under state law, and a shared interest with coworkers. Stericycle may also be overturned.

What should you do this week?

In order:

1. Find the rule for every state involved. Use the table. For a video call, note where each person sits, not where the company is based.
2. Get the recording policy. Check the handbook, or ask HR for it in writing before the meeting. Whether a written rule existed mattered in the cases above.
3. Save the two scripts. Keep the request and the email where you can reach them in the meeting.
4. Ask at the start of the meeting. If HR says no, stop and take notes by hand.
5. Send the summary email the same day. Put the correction date in your calendar, and file any reply.
6. If you already recorded, or were disciplined for it, talk to an employment lawyer before you share or delete the file.

Common questions about recording HR meetings

Is it illegal to secretly record a meeting with HR?

Not under federal law if you are in the meeting. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) lets a participant record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious. State law is the problem. California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon (in person), Pennsylvania and Washington require everyone’s consent or knowledge, and Delaware, Michigan and Missouri (in person) are unsettled. Check the state of every person in the meeting, not only your own.

Can an employer fire you for recording a conversation at work?

Yes, even where the recording was legal. In Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall (6th Cir. 2025), the court upheld a firing for secret recording in Ohio, a one-party state, where the employer had no written policy against it. Federal labor law can protect some recordings made with or for coworkers about working conditions. It does not cover supervisors or government employees.

Can you record your manager yelling at you?

It depends on the state and the setting. Several all-party statutes cover only confidential or private talks. California’s excludes situations where people may reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded (Penal Code § 632(c)). Shouting across an open office may fall outside that. A closed-door meeting almost certainly will not. In most one-party states, you can record any conversation you are part of.

Can you sue HR for recording you without permission?

Only where the recording broke a law. In one-party states, HR can lawfully record a meeting it takes part in. In all-party states you may have a civil claim. California allows $5,000 per violation (Penal Code § 637.2). Massachusetts allows $100 a day or $1,000, whichever is higher (G.L. c. 272, § 99(Q)). Washington allows damages under RCW 9.73.060. Federal law adds a claim only when no party consented (18 U.S.C. § 2520).

Sources

State statutes not listed here are linked in the table above.

• 18 U.S.C. § 2511, Wiretap Act (Cornell LII)
• 18 U.S.C. § 2515, evidence rule (Cornell LII)
• 18 U.S.C. § 2520, civil damages (Cornell LII)
• 29 U.S.C. § 152, NLRA definitions (Cornell LII)
• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, Title VII retaliation (Cornell LII)
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (Cornell LII)
• Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall, LLC, No. 24-3292 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025)
• Spagnolia v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. 23-1190 (10th Cir. July 2, 2024), unpublished
• Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (FindLaw)
• Stephens Media, LLC v. NLRB, No. 11-1054 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 20, 2012)
• Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 87 (2015), copy of the slip opinion
• Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. v. NLRB, 691 F. App’x 49 (2d Cir. 2017), summary order
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 865 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2017)
• The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), copy of the slip opinion
• Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), amended decision
• NLRB General Counsel memo GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025)
• NLRB, GC 25-05 rescission of certain General Counsel memos (February 14, 2025)
• NLRB General Counsel memo GC 26-03 (February 27, 2026)
• NLRB General Counsel memo GC 26-04 (August 26, 2026)
• NLRB, General Counsel memos index
• Proskauer, via National Law Review, on GC 26-04 (September 3, 2026)
• NLRB, Weingarten rights page (read September 10, 2026)
• NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975)
• McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995)
• EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, August 25, 2016
• Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006), unofficial copy (vLex)
• Microsoft Support, Start, stop, and find meeting recordings in Microsoft Teams
• Brown-Schmidt, Jaeger, Lord and Benjamin, Remembering conversation in group settings, Memory and Cognition 53(4) (2025; online 2024) (PMC)
• Brown-Schmidt, Jaeger, Evans and Benjamin, MEMCONS: How Contemporaneous Note-Taking Shapes Memory for Conversation, Cognitive Science 47(4) (2023), abstract (Europe PMC)
• Cal. Penal Code § 632 (California Legislature)
• Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 (California Legislature)
• Fla. Stat. chapter 934 (Florida Legislature)
• 720 ILCS 5/14-2 (Illinois General Assembly)
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 (Maryland General Assembly)
• Mass. G.L. c. 272, § 99 (Massachusetts Legislature)
• MCA 45-8-213 (Montana Legislature)
• RSA 570-A:2 (New Hampshire General Court)
• ORS chapter 165, including § 165.540 (Oregon Legislature)
• 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704 (Pennsylvania General Assembly)
• RCW 9.73.030 (Washington Legislature)
• RCW 9.73.050 (Washington Legislature)
• RCW 9.73.060 (Washington Legislature)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. chapter 925, § 52-570d (Connecticut General Assembly)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. chapter 952, §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189 (Connecticut General Assembly)
• Del. Code tit. 11, chapter 24, § 2402 (Delaware Code)
• Del. Code tit. 11, § 1335 (Delaware Code)
• MCL 750.539a (Michigan Legislature)
• RSMo § 542.402 (Missouri Revisor of Statutes)
• NRS chapter 200 (Nevada Legislature)
• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 (Nebraska Legislature)
• HRS § 711-1111 (Hawaii Legislature)
• RCFP, Reporters Recording Guide introduction
• RCFP, Delaware recording guide (October 2019)
• RCFP, Kansas recording guide
• RCFP, Michigan recording guide (May 2020)
• RCFP, Missouri recording guide (May 2020)
• RCFP, Nevada recording guide (May 2020)
• RCFP, Vermont recording guide (June 2020)

Review schedule. State-level rules are re-checked every six months; federal law annually. The Verified date above is set at import and is the date the facts here were last checked. General information on US law, not legal advice for a particular situation.