Can you post about client work when you've signed an NDA?

Updated 24 September 2026 · 6 minute read

Usually yes, and less of it than you think is actually restricted.

This is not legal advice and your agreement is the thing that governs you, not this page. Confidentiality clauses vary more than people expect, and a few are genuinely broad. Read yours. What follows is the operational version: what people actually get wrong, and what has to come out of a call before any of it is publishable.

Four different acts, not one

The reason this feels unanswerable is that "posting about client work" covers four separate things, and they carry different risk.

Naming the client. The clearest case, and the one nearly every agreement restricts in some form. Some allow it with written permission, some allow it only in a client list, some not at all.

Describing them closely enough to be identified. Usually restricted in effect even where it is not restricted by name, because identifying somebody by a description is still identifying them. "A Series B fintech in Leeds with 40 people and a new CRO" is a name.

Quoting their numbers. Almost always restricted, and the one most likely to cause real damage rather than an awkward conversation.

Sharing a conclusion you reached. This is the one people wrongly assume is covered. What you now think about a category of problem, having seen it several times, is generally your own professional knowledge rather than the client's confidential information. Most agreements say nothing about it at all.

That fourth act is where nearly all publishable material lives, and it is the one most people give up on because they have collapsed all four into a single worry.

The test that is simpler than the legal one

Before the legal question there is a practical one, and it disposes of most cases on its own.

Could a reader work out who you are talking about? If yes, it does not matter how the agreement is worded, because you have identified them. If no, and the point stands without the specifics, you are usually in the territory of your own expertise rather than their confidential information.

The pattern you noticed across four clients belongs to you. The situation inside any one of them belongs to them. That distinction does more work than any clause-by-clause reading, and it is the one worth internalising.

What has to come out of a transcript

If the material is coming from recorded calls, the stripping has to happen before the transcript reaches anything you write with, not afterwards in review. Catching it at the end means the detail has already been through every tool you used to get there.

What comes out:

→ Names. Every variant, not just the full one. First names alone are the ones that slip through, because they read as harmless in isolation and identify perfectly in context.

→ Company names, replaced with something that carries the sector without the identity.

→ Contact details. Emails, phone numbers, addresses.

→ Numbers that only one client could have. Headcount, revenue, deal sizes, dates specific enough to pin down.

What stays: the shape of the problem, the reasoning, and your own explanation of how you think about it. That is the part worth publishing and almost none of it is confidential.

Whose insight is it anyway

There is a second question underneath the legal one and it gets asked less often, which is a shame because it is the one that damages reputations rather than contracts.

Your client said something genuinely smart on a call. It is still not yours to publish under your own name.

This matters more than it sounds. On a typical call the other person is talking for most of it. Measured across a corpus of real calls, roughly two thirds of the words are the guest rather than the host. A tool that mines "insights" from a transcript without distinguishing who said what will hand you their thinking with your byline on it, and you will not notice, because it reads like a good post.

The rule that avoids it: only your own speech becomes something you publish. Their situation, their phrasing and their conclusions stay theirs.

What this looks like in Inklined

Every transcript is anonymised on the way in, before anything else happens to it. A first pass builds a map of names and companies to role and sector descriptors, a second pass does the replacement, and the descriptors are what gets stored. People become "Host [GTM Consultant]" or "Guest [B2B Sales VP]". Contact details are removed.

Only your own speech can become something you publish. The speaker role is checked rather than assumed, and unknown does not count as yours.

Anything that still looks like it names an organisation asks you before it will draft from it. That check deliberately over-flags, because a false positive costs you a click and a false negative publishes a client's name.

The recorder inside Inklined is not anonymised, because that is you talking to yourself on purpose.

If you are still not sure

Three things that cost nothing:

Ask. A surprising number of clients will say yes to being named, particularly if the post makes them look thoughtful. Asking also converts a risk into a relationship.

Write it without the specifics first and see whether it still works. If the point survives, the specifics were decoration. If it does not survive, the piece was about them rather than about your thinking, and that is the case where you need permission.

Wait for the second instance. Something you have now seen at three clients is a pattern rather than a story about one of them, and a pattern is yours.

Common questions

Does an NDA stop me posting about my work entirely?

Almost never. Most confidentiality clauses restrict disclosing the client's confidential information, which is their data, their plans and their identity. The professional judgement you developed while working is generally yours. Your own agreement governs, so read it, and ask a solicitor if the wording is broad.

Can I say "a client in fintech"?

It depends on how many clients in fintech you have and how much else you have said. One detail is anonymous, four together are an identification. The test is whether a reader could work out who you mean, not whether you named them.

Is it safe to put a client transcript into an AI tool?

It depends on when the anonymisation happens. On the way in, before anything else touches it, means identifiable detail never reaches the draft. At the end, or left for you to catch in review, means it has already been through everything. Ask which one a tool does before you trust it with client calls.

What if the client's own words are the best part?

They are often the best part, and they are still theirs. Use them to understand what your market actually cares about and how it phrases the problem, then write your own view of it. Publishing their thinking under your name is a reputational problem rather than a legal one, which makes it worse rather than better.

Do I need permission to describe a problem I have seen several times?

Generally not, and that is the whole point of the pattern test. A conclusion drawn across several engagements is your professional knowledge. A story about one engagement is theirs.