Tell your defense lawyer promptly and preserve the details. A recorded call with counsel for legal advice is different from an ordinary monitored family call. Penal Code section 636(a) prohibits recording or electronic eavesdropping on a covered conversation between a person in custody or on public-agency property and that person’s attorney without all-party permission. Subdivision (b) separately addresses intentional, nonelectronic listening in specified private custody settings. Whether the law applies depends on the location, the conversation, and the conduct; a violation does not automatically dismiss a case or suppress unrelated evidence. (Penal Code § 636)

Write down the facility, date and time, number dialed, account or call ID, any warning played, the attorney relationship, and how you learned of possible recording or listening. Preserve messages or notices and tell counsel who may have received or accessed the recording. Do not assume that every call to a person who is a lawyer was confidential: the communication must meet the attorney-client privilege’s requirements, including a legal-purpose confidential communication. (Evidence Code § 954)

Evidence Code section 917 presumes confidentiality when the lawyer-client privilege is claimed; electronic transmission or access by an intermediary alone does not remove that confidential character. Section 912 addresses waiver, which depends on voluntary disclosure or consent under the statute. Those rules do not establish that a particular call was privileged if the circumstances show otherwise. Preserve the call information and let counsel assess the actual content, participants, routing, and access history. (Evidence Code § 917; Evidence Code § 912)

In North v. Superior Court, the court discussed the attorney-consultation exception in a case involving a recorded spouse conversation; it did not establish an automatic remedy for every modern recorded lawyer call. (North v. Superior Court)

Counsel can determine whether to request preservation, investigate who heard or received the call, assert privilege, or seek a tailored court ruling before proposed use. Section 636 is a conduct prohibition, not a rule promising a particular remedy, access to every jail log, or dismissal. The right response depends on the actual recording, who obtained it, whether the communication was privileged, and whether it was disclosed or used. A facility’s procedure for confidential calls varies; ask counsel to confirm the current process rather than relying on an assumed vendor or jail protocol.

For a California custody-communication issue, contact the Law Offices of David S. Chesley at (800) 755-5174.