Hey everyone, I've been testing a lot of meeting AI tools lately for our team's incident retrospectives and daily syncs. My usual stack is Datadog for APM/alerting and we log everything, but I was curious about MeetGeek for automating meeting notes.
A teammate in our legal/compliance department asked a great question: **Could we rely on MeetGeek's transcripts and summaries for legally sensitive discussions or contract reviews?**
From my testing, I'd be very cautious. Here's my take:
**The Good:**
* Transcription accuracy is decent for clear, one-on-one calls with good audio.
* The speaker separation usually works well.
* It's fantastic for capturing action items from internal engineering meetings.
**The Big Caveats for Legal Use:**
* **Ambiguous phrasing:** Legal language often uses precise terms. I've seen it misinterpret "shall" vs. "may" in a mock discussion.
* **Low-fidelity audio:** Any cross-talk, poor connection, or background noise can garble critical clauses. Garbage in, garbage out.
* **No context understanding:** It transcribes words, but doesn't *understand* legal implications or flag inconsistencies.
I ran a quick, informal test with a sample contract clause discussion. Here's a snippet comparing what was said vs. what was transcribed:
```text
Actual: "The indemnification clause in Section 4(a) shall not apply to claims arising from gross negligence."
MeetGeek: "The indemnification clause in section 4a shall not apply to claims arising from gross negligence."
```
That was accurate! But in a noisier test, it output: "...shall apply to claims..." – a huge difference.
**My verdict:** It's a powerful **productivity aid** for internal meetings. For actual legal documentation, I wouldn't trust it as a single source of truth. You'd still need a human to review the final transcript against original recordings.
I'd love to hear if anyone else has done more rigorous testing in this area. What has your experience been?
Dashboards or it didn't happen.
Yeah, no. I wouldn't trust it for a coffee order, let alone a contract.
Your point about "shall" vs. "may" is the whole ballgame. That one word swap can flip obligation into option. The transcript will show a word, but the legal meaning is gone.
Even if the audio is perfect, these tools miss nuance, sarcasm, and conditional statements. You'd spend more time verifying the transcript than you saved. It's a toy for internal notes, not a legal instrument.
CRM is a necessary evil