Regulating Technology in Court Reporting

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The rapid advancement of technology is outpacing our ability to manage and regulate it effectively, posing risks to public health, safety, and welfare. In the legal field, court reporting stands as a pillar of accuracy and reliability, ensuring an official and verifiable record of proceedings. However, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and automatic speech recognition (ASR) threatens to undermine the integrity of this critical function. These technologies are not yet capable of meeting the high standards required in legal settings, where even minor errors can have profound consequences. As such, it is imperative to regulate AI and ASR strictly to prevent their infiltration into court reporting and protect the public interest.

The Risks of AI and ASR in Court Reporting

AI and ASR technologies, while advancing rapidly, are fundamentally flawed when applied in high-stakes legal environments. These systems lack the nuanced understanding required to accurately transcribe complex legal terminology, dialects, accents, and contextual speech variations. Misinterpretations, dropped words, and incorrect attributions could alter the meaning of testimonies, jeopardizing fair trials and due process. Unlike professional court reporters, AI and ASR systems cannot seek clarification, discern tone, or recognize non-verbal cues that are essential for an accurate legal record.

Furthermore, these technologies introduce serious ethical and security concerns. AI-driven systems require vast amounts of data to function, raising questions about data privacy and the potential misuse of sensitive legal information. ASR software, often developed by private companies, lacks transparency regarding its algorithms, accuracy rates, and bias mitigation measures. Without stringent oversight, reliance on AI and ASR could compromise the integrity of court records, eroding public trust in the judicial system.

The Need for Regulation and Prohibition

To safeguard the accuracy and reliability of legal transcripts, it is essential to establish clear regulatory barriers preventing the adoption of AI and ASR in court reporting. The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) should advocate for laws that explicitly prohibit the use of these technologies in judicial settings, ensuring that certified human court reporters remain the sole custodians of legal transcripts. Policymakers must recognize that court reporting is not a field where automation can replace human expertise without endangering justice.

Regulations should include:

  • A Ban on AI and ASR in Court Reporting: Legislation must prohibit the use of AI and ASR for creating official court records, ensuring that only certified human court reporters are entrusted with this responsibility.
  • Strict Accuracy Standards: Any attempt to introduce automated transcription services into legal settings should be met with rigorous accuracy benchmarks that AI and ASR cannot currently meet.
  • Transparency Requirements for Tech Companies: If AI or ASR providers attempt to enter the legal space, they must be required to disclose error rates, training data sources, and bias-mitigation measures, proving beyond doubt that their technology does not compromise legal integrity.
  • Severe Penalties for Non-Compliance: Courts, legal professionals, and transcription providers should face strict penalties for violating regulations that prohibit AI and ASR from replacing human court reporters.

Applying the Concept of ‘Responsible Charge’ to Court Reporting

The concept of “Responsible Charge,” long upheld in the engineering profession, can serve as a model for maintaining professional integrity in court reporting. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) defines “Responsible Charge” as the direct control and personal supervision of engineering work, requiring licensed engineers to be actively engaged in all stages of a project to ensure adherence to ethical and professional standards.

This model aligns closely with the role of court reporters, who bear full responsibility for the accuracy, confidentiality, and completeness of legal transcripts. Just as a licensed engineer cannot merely review work post-completion, a certified court reporter must exercise oversight throughout the entire reporting process, from the initial transcription to the final certified document. This hands-on engagement ensures that court records meet the highest standards of accuracy and reliability.

The Role of Certified Professional Court Reporters

Certified professional court reporters are irreplaceable in ensuring accurate, unbiased, and secure legal records. Unlike AI, human court reporters:

  • Have a deep understanding of legal terminology and context.
  • Can ask for clarification when speech is unclear or ambiguous.
  • Ensure confidentiality and ethical handling of sensitive court records.
  • Provide real-time transcription with an unmatched level of accuracy and reliability.

By formally adopting a “Responsible Charge” model, the court reporting industry can reinforce professional accountability and protect against the encroachment of AI and ASR. This framework affirms that:

  • Court reporters maintain direct oversight over their work, ensuring that no automated system compromises the integrity of legal transcripts.
  • They are actively engaged in all aspects of the reporting process, including quality control and certification of transcripts.
  • They commit to professional development to stay ahead of evolving legal and linguistic challenges.

The Benefits of Implementing ‘Responsible Charge’ in Court Reporting

  • Enhanced Accountability: Establishing a formal “Responsible Charge” framework ensures that certified court reporters maintain full responsibility for their work, preventing reliance on unverified automated tools.
  • Increased Public Trust: Reinforcing the role of human oversight reassures legal professionals and the public that court records remain accurate, unbiased, and secure.
  • Stronger Ethical Standards: A “Responsible Charge” model aligns court reporting with other highly regulated professions, ensuring that ethical considerations take precedence over cost-cutting automation trends.
  • Improved Legal Safeguards: With direct professional involvement, the risks of transcript errors or misinterpretations due to AI-driven mistakes are eliminated, preserving the integrity of the judicial system.

Conclusion

AI and ASR technologies are not suitable replacements for human court reporters. Their inability to meet the high accuracy and ethical standards required in legal settings makes them a threat to justice rather than an asset. By formally adopting a “Responsible Charge” model, the court reporting profession can strengthen its ethical standards, improve accountability, and reinforce public trust in the judicial system. The National Court Reporters Association must work aggressively to regulate and restrict AI and ASR from infiltrating the legal industry, ensuring that human expertise remains at the core of legal transcription. Through proactive engagement and unwavering professional responsibility, court reporters can continue to serve as the gold standard for accurate and impartial legal records.

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment