PR agency wins court ruling: Where do workplace recording ethics stand?

A Singapore PR firm’s decision to sack its managing director after she secretly recorded an internal meeting has reinforced the importance of trust and confidentiality in the agency business, as the growing use of smartphones and AI-powered transcription tools makes it easier to document conversations.

In an article published on Straits Times on 26 October, it was detailed that an unnamed PR firm had dismissed its managing director, identified only as JJT, without notice on 6 March 2026 after the firm discovered that she had recorded a meeting with its president and chief human resources officer without their consent.

The meeting, held on 3 March, was called to discuss alleged lapses during her notice period, including unauthorised contact with a client. JJT argued that she had recorded the conversation to take accurate notes and prepare a response to the allegations. JTT also said the recording was deleted immediately when asked to, and that no client confidential information or business figures had been discussed. However, the firm considered the act a breach of trust and confidence, particularly given its responsibility to safeguard sensitive client information.

In a judgment dated 23 October, Tribunal Magistrate Kerry Chan dismissed JJT’s wrongful dismissal claim. The tribunal found that the covert recording was sufficient to undermine trust and confidence in the employment relationship, regardless of whether she had intended to cause harm. The magistrate also clarified that this did not mean every unauthorised recording would warrant summary dismissal, as each case would depend on its circumstances.

For PR agencies, the case serves as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with handling sensitive client information, as well as the importance of trust within their own teams. It also comes at a time when the tools used to document workplace conversations are changing, potentially leaving organisations with policies that have not kept pace.

Don't miss: Why StanChart’s 'lower-value human' layoffs became a PR problem, not just a job cuts announcement

Alex Png, chief people officer at The Hoffman Agency, said AI notetakers have introduced a new layer of complexity for organisations. Unlike traditional recording devices, some tools can automatically join virtual meetings, transcribe conversations and distribute summaries to everyone on the calendar invite, potentially including people outside the organisation. 

“Most policies were written when recording meant a device on the table that everyone could see, so they say very little [being discussed] about this,” Png said, adding that organisations need to be clearer about the circumstances in which recording, transcription and summarisation tools can be used. 

However, Png said organisations should also consider why employees might feel the need to record conversations in the first place. In situations involving difficult feedback or workplace disagreements, employees may want an accurate account of what was said, particularly if they are concerned about being misquoted.

“Most people who record a meeting in secret are afraid of being misquoted. That is a fair fear, and it is easy to empathise with,” he said.

Png, who said his comments reflect his personal views and professional observations, and are not intended to represent The Hoffman Agency’s position or internal policies, also cautioned that secretly recording a conversation can undermine trust among everyone involved. This is particularly so as participants potentially becoming more guarded about what they say and questioning whether other conversations have also been recorded.

Rather than relying on covert recordings, Png suggested that employees take their own notes and follow up with an email within the hour, documenting their understanding of the discussion and any agreed actions. As he puts it: 

A record you share builds trust. A recording you hide spends it.

For Oliver Budgen, founder and CEO of Bud Communications, the issue goes beyond introducing clearer workplace policies. He said an organisation's culture also plays a role in whether employees feel comfortable raising concerns and having difficult conversations openly.

Budgen said agencies need to foster a culture where employees feel able to speak openly, with accountability and transparency forming part of the working relationship. Without this, policies may do little to address the underlying reasons someone might want to document a conversation without others knowing.

Policy won't necessarily stop an employee from surreptitiously recording a private meeting if they don't feel safe in the first place.

This is particularly important in the PR business, where agencies are entrusted with information that may not want to be public - especially around sensitive business development strategies and client decisions.

“Clients may tell us things before they tell their board, their employees, their investors or the press. That kind of trust is hard earned, and once it's lost it's very difficult to win back,” he said.

An unauthorised recording that is shared beyond its intended audience could expose information that clients have deliberately kept confidential. It could also affect how clients view an agency's ability to exercise discretion, particularly when that agency is responsible for managing their reputation and communications.

Budgen said the Singapore case reinforces the importance of transparency when recording workplace discussions. If a meeting is being recorded, everyone involved should know about it, while any resulting transcript should be handled with the same level of care as a client document.

“The real safeguard is a culture with enough accountability, transparency and safety that nobody feels the need to record a meeting in secret,” he said.

From a legal perspective, the growing use of recording and transcription tools requires organisations to balance the convenience of technology with the risks of exposing sensitive information, explained Mark Seah, senior partner at Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP.

Furthermore, individuals or organisations should seek express consent before recording a conversation, rather than simply informing participants that a recording is taking place. This helps remove any doubt over whether consent can reasonably be implied.

“Informed consent distinguishes the legitimate recording of a conversation from a covert recording in circumstances that undermine trust or compromise confidentiality,” he said.

However, obtaining consent does not mean organisations can subsequently use or distribute recordings without restrictions.

Seah said the purpose of the recording, the circumstances in which it was made, the sensitivity of the information captured, relevant workplace policies and the intended use or disclosure should all be considered.

Even legitimately created recordings should not be circulated unnecessarily, with access limited to people who are subject to confidentiality obligations. Where employers make recordings, these should also be securely stored and not retained for longer than necessary, he added.

The consequences of an unauthorised recording becoming public could extend beyond reputational damage. Seah said recordings may expose commercially sensitive strategies, confidential information, internal disagreements or preliminary deliberations that were never intended for public consumption.

Depending on the circumstances, this could result in a loss of client confidence, disputes, regulatory scrutiny and potential legal liability. Seah explained:

Maintaining confidentiality is however more than a legal obligation; it is a currency of trust. Once devalued, restoring confidence can fraught with difficulty.

Ultimately, the Singapore case reinforces that confidentiality is not simply about keeping information from reaching the public. For agencies, it is also about maintaining the trust that allows clients to share sensitive information and employees to have candid conversations without fearing that every discussion could later be used or circulated out of context.

Related articles: 
StanChart's internal memo softens the tone, but does it fix the trust?  
‘We are sorry’: OpenAI moves to rebuild trust after Australian government breaches  
Trust turns inward in Singapore as insularity rises