AI and Digital Technology in Court Reporting: Not the Revolution It Was Thought to Be

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies has been heralded as a transformative force in various industries, from healthcare to finance. Court reporting, a critical but often overlooked profession, was expected to be one of the fields where AI-driven transcription tools and digital reporting systems would bring efficiency, accuracy, and cost savings. However, the reality has been starkly different. Much like the findings from a recent Pew Research Center survey on AI in the workplace, the use of AI in court reporting has been met with skepticism, underwhelming adoption, and unintended consequences that have left many professionals questioning its true impact.

The Initial Hype: A Promise of Efficiency and Accuracy

When AI-powered transcription and digital recording tools first entered the court reporting scene, proponents claimed that these technologies would revolutionize the industry. Companies developing AI-based transcription services marketed their software as being capable of real-time speech-to-text conversion, eliminating the need for human stenographers. These tools were expected to reduce costs, expedite legal proceedings, and make court reporting more accessible to jurisdictions struggling with stenographer shortages.

In theory, digital reporting systems and AI transcription software promised to:

  • Provide near-instant transcripts of court proceedings.
  • Reduce human error and increase accuracy.
  • Cut down on the expenses associated with traditional stenography.
  • Address the growing shortage of court reporters by filling gaps where human resources were lacking.

The Reality: AI Falls Short in Court Reporting

Despite these lofty promises, the practical implementation of AI in court reporting has been fraught with issues, leading to a workforce that remains largely skeptical of the technology’s effectiveness.

1. Accuracy Issues and Misinterpretation

One of the biggest challenges AI transcription tools face in court reporting is accuracy. Legal proceedings involve complex terminology, various accents, multiple speakers talking over one another, and industry-specific jargon that AI struggles to interpret correctly. While AI has made strides in natural language processing, it still falls short of matching the precision and contextual understanding of trained human court reporters.

Errors in transcriptions are not just minor inconveniences; they can have serious legal implications. A misinterpretation of testimony, a misattribution of a statement, or an omission of key legal terms can significantly impact case outcomes. Unlike casual conversations or simple dictations, court proceedings demand near-perfect transcription, something AI has yet to consistently deliver.

2. Lack of Adaptability to Legal Nuances

Court reporters do more than just transcribe words; they understand the nuances of legal language, recognize when a judge or attorney wants something clarified, and can request repetitions when needed. AI lacks this level of contextual awareness. Automated transcription tools may record words verbatim, but they cannot flag potential ambiguities or confirm legal terminology with attorneys on the spot.

3. AI and the Issue of Trust in Legal Proceedings

Legal professionals, including judges and attorneys, must trust the accuracy and confidentiality of court records. AI-driven tools, many of which rely on cloud-based servers for processing, have raised concerns about data security and the integrity of legal records. Courts handle sensitive information, and storing transcripts on external servers introduces risks of breaches or unauthorized access, leading to hesitation in fully adopting these systems.

4. Resistance from Court Reporters and Legal Professionals

Just as the Pew Research Center found that many American workers are either indifferent or concerned about AI’s role in the workplace, court reporters have expressed deep reservations about AI replacing human expertise. Many experienced stenographers argue that digital and AI-powered systems do not meet the profession’s high standards and could ultimately degrade the quality of legal records. Additionally, the fear of job displacement looms large, with AI seen as a potential justification for cost-cutting measures that could lead to layoffs.

The Role of Power Dynamics in AI Adoption

The skepticism surrounding AI in court reporting is not merely about technological shortcomings—it also reflects the broader concerns about workplace power dynamics. As noted in the recent Pew study, workers who have control over their working conditions, such as independent professionals, are more likely to see AI as a helpful tool. Conversely, those in structured employment settings, such as court reporters working within judicial systems, may feel that AI adoption is imposed upon them without their input, leading to greater resistance.

In many cases, AI-driven transcription services are being pushed by administrative decision-makers, rather than the court reporters themselves. The top-down approach has created an environment where the professionals who actually use the technology on a daily basis feel disconnected from its development and implementation.

The Future of AI in Court Reporting: A Complement, Not a Replacement

Despite the challenges, AI and digital technology are not entirely without merit in court reporting. When used correctly, AI can serve as a valuable tool to enhance, rather than replace, human expertise. The future of AI in court reporting may lie in hybrid models where AI assists stenographers, rather than attempts to replace them outright. There is one CAT software vendor which has spent the past decade perfecting just such a thing: Advantage Software, who makes Eclipse for court reporters.

Potential Ways AI Can Assist Court Reporters:

  • Real-time Assistance: AI could help stenographers by providing real-time suggestions or flagging areas of transcripts that may require human review.
  • Filling the Gaps in Low-Resource Areas: In jurisdictions struggling with court reporter shortages, AI-assisted digital reporting may help provide temporary solutions while still requiring human oversight.
  • Speeding Up Transcript Delivery: AI can be used to generate rough drafts of transcripts that stenographers can then refine and finalize, speeding up the overall process.

Conclusion: AI’s Role Needs to Be Reassessed

The expectations for AI in court reporting have not matched reality. While AI transcription tools have made some advancements, they continue to fall short in terms of accuracy, contextual awareness, and adaptability to legal language. Just as the Pew Research study found widespread skepticism about AI in the broader workforce, court reporters and legal professionals remain cautious about fully embracing AI in their field.

Rather than replacing human stenographers, AI should be viewed as an augmentative tool—one that enhances productivity without compromising the accuracy and reliability of court records. The legal system relies on precision and trust, and until AI can consistently meet these standards, human court reporters will remain indispensable.

For AI to truly benefit the court reporting industry, it must be developed in collaboration with those who understand the profession best. Without this, AI will continue to be seen not as a revolutionary force, but as an inadequate substitute for human expertise in one of the most critical functions of the judicial system.

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