Avina's engagement contract authorises recording in California (Penal Code section 632, all-party consent). When the Principal is in another state, additional authorisations apply. This matrix covers California, New York, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada — the architecture-locked launch states.
Engagement contract template →One-party consent (only one participant needs to know) is the easier regime. All-party consent (every participant must know) is stricter and applies in the four launch states. California is the most cited.
All-party consent. California Penal Code § 632 makes it a crime to record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. A "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances suggesting any party desires it to be confined to the parties.
Practical implication for Avina: Avina's engagement contract section 6 expressly authorises recording on Family Member's signature, and a separate consent script is read to the Principal at the start of each recorded session. The recording is referenced to law enforcement and clinical providers under defined conditions.
Cal. Penal Code § 632 · § 632.7 (cellular calls)
One-party consent. New York Penal Law § 250.05 prohibits eavesdropping but only where no party consents. A party to the conversation can record it without notifying others.
Practical implication for Avina: Avina personnel may record their own conversations with the Principal in New York without separate Principal consent. Avina's policy nonetheless asks Principal to consent at the start of each session as a matter of professional discipline, regardless of state. The contract authorisation in section 6 is sufficient legally.
N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05 · § 250.00(2)
All-party consent. Florida Statutes § 934.03 prohibits the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication without the consent of all parties. Florida's exception for one-party consent is narrower than most states.
Practical implication for Avina: Same as California. Engagement contract section 6 covers it, and a separate consent script is read at the start of each recorded session. Florida § 817.505 also creates a state-level analog to federal EKRA with a lower proof threshold for referral-fee violations — relevant to the broader compliance posture but not to recording specifically.
Fla. Stat. § 934.03
One-party consent. A.R.S. § 13-3005 prohibits interception of communications but exempts a party to the communication. A participant can record without notifying other parties.
Practical implication for Avina: Same as New York. Contract authorisation suffices. Arizona is one of the multi-state expansion candidates per the architecture document.
A.R.S. § 13-3005
Mixed. Nevada is officially a one-party consent state for in-person conversations (NRS 200.620), but NRS 200.650 makes telephone recording all-party consent. The Nevada Supreme Court has applied the all-party rule liberally.
Practical implication for Avina: Treat Nevada as effectively all-party consent. Contract authorisation in section 6 is sufficient for in-person; for telephone calls, an explicit verbal consent script at the start of every recorded call.
NRS 200.620 (in-person) · NRS 200.650 (telephone) · Lane v. Allstate (Nev. 1997)
The state matrix above is the legal floor. Avina's operational policy is stricter: same recording-consent script applies in every state, regardless of whether the law requires it. Practical reasons: (1) consistency for Avina personnel; (2) evidentiary clarity if a recording is referenced; (3) trust with families and Principals.
At the start of any recorded session — in any state — read the consent script aloud and record the reading. Wait for the Principal's "yes" before continuing. If the Principal is not competent to consent, rely on Family Member's pre-signed authorisation in section 6 of the engagement contract.
Every recording filename includes: client identifier, date, time, location (city + state), Avina personnel initials. Stored in the engagement's secure folder. Retention: engagement duration plus 7 years (longer than most state statutes of limitation for civil claims).
Recordings produced to law enforcement, clinicians, or attorneys-of-record only on (a) the Principal's safety, (b) Avina personnel's legal protection, or (c) court order. Production decision logged in the engagement file.
If the Principal travels to a different state during the engagement, the strictest applicable rule controls. When in doubt, treat as all-party consent. Avina personnel ask "I'm recording for the engagement file, is that OK with you?" at the start of any new state context.
This matrix is reference material for Avina personnel, not legal advice. Healthcare regulatory counsel (recommended: Nelson Hardiman) reviews and updates this matrix annually or whenever a relevant statute changes.
| State | Statute | Regime | Last reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code § 632, § 632.7 | All-party consent | 03/05/2026 |
| New York | N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05, § 250.00(2) | One-party consent | 03/05/2026 |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 934.03 | All-party consent | 03/05/2026 |
| Arizona | A.R.S. § 13-3005 | One-party consent | 03/05/2026 |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 / NRS 200.650 | Mixed (effectively all-party) | 03/05/2026 |
This matrix is a working reference for Avina case-management operations. It is not legal advice. The cited statutes and case-law citations are starting points and should be verified by California-licensed healthcare regulatory counsel before being relied on for any specific engagement. The architecture-locked recommended counsel is Nelson Hardiman (Los Angeles); engagement is pending.