Steno Still Stands Strong

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inUncategorizedTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the world of court reporting, accuracy isn’t just a preference—it’s a legal necessity. Capturing the spoken word verbatim in judicial proceedings is a critical responsibility, and over the years, three primary methods have emerged to fulfill this role: the steno machine, the steno mask (also known as voice writing), and the newest contender, AI-powered automated speech recognition (ASR). While all three methods aim to transcribe spoken dialogue, not all are created equal—nor are they equally accepted under the law.

Currently, only two of these methods—the steno machine and the steno mask—are backed by certification requirements, rendering them legally acceptable in 24 states across the United States. Among them, the steno machine stands tall as the gold standard, praised for its precision, reliability, and unmatched ability to produce instant readbacks.

The Steno Machine: Precision in Motion

The steno machine is a specialized keyboard that allows trained court reporters to press multiple keys simultaneously, generating phonetic codes representing words, syllables, and phrases. This shorthand is then translated into English through software. Historically, these codes were imprinted on paper, but now they’re stored digitally, allowing for fast retrieval and editing.

What truly sets the steno machine apart is its ability to provide instant readback—an essential function in any courtroom. When a judge or attorney requests a statement to be repeated, the stenographer can immediately scroll through their steno notes and read back the exact words spoken. Even in instances where a word or phrase isn’t properly translated by the software, a machine writer can rely on the steno outlines to interpret and deliver an accurate account, thanks to the visual imprint (or shadowing) left on the paper or digital display.

This capability is unique to the steno machine. It’s not only the fastest method, but also the most accountable, allowing real-time correction and verification on the spot.

The Steno Mask Writer: A Compromised Backup

Steno mask writers—or voice writers—speak directly into a hand-held, soundproof mask equipped with a microphone, repeating verbatim everything said in the courtroom. Their speech is translated into text by speech recognition software. While this method has gained some ground, especially in states like Georgia, it still lacks the immediacy and self-sufficiency of the steno machine.

When an error occurs or a readback is requested, the voice writer can’t rely on a visual shorthand outline. Instead, they must play back their audio recording—of their own voice only, not ambient sound—delaying the process and compromising real-time accuracy. This latency could be critical during high-stakes proceedings where every second counts.

Moreover, the accuracy of this method hinges heavily on the reporter’s personal voice dictionary and their experience in building and maintaining it. An underdeveloped or poorly trained dictionary can lead to missed words, misinterpretations, or delays in transcription—none of which are acceptable in a legal environment.

AI/ASR: The Future That’s Not Quite Ready

Artificial intelligence and automated speech recognition (ASR) have burst into the courtroom tech scene in recent years, especially following the widespread adoption of virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Companies like Zoom have partnered with ASR developers to provide live transcriptions of remote hearings and depositions. At first glance, this seems like an ideal solution—cost-effective, high-speed, and always available.

But dig a little deeper, and the flaws are glaring.

ASR technology currently averages around 76% accuracy, far below the standard required for legal proceedings where precision is non-negotiable. These AI systems cannot discern context, handle multiple speakers reliably, or identify nuanced legal jargon. Furthermore, ASR systems are unmanned, meaning no human is monitoring or correcting the output in real-time. If an error occurs, there’s no accountability and no way to provide an instant readback—a serious drawback in a courtroom setting.

Worse yet, there’s no one to hold responsible for transcription errors. If a vital statement is misrepresented in a transcript, who is liable? The software? The vendor? Without a certified, accountable human being responsible for the transcript, the legal integrity of the record is severely compromised.

Certification: The Backbone of Legal Verbatim Reporting

Certification exists for a reason—it ensures a reporter has met rigorous standards for accuracy, speed, knowledge of legal procedures, grammar, and ethics. The Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) exam is a gold standard test that steno machine and mask reporters must pass. It ensures not only competence, but accountability.

By contrast, digital reporters—another recent trend fueled by transcription agencies—don’t meet this bar. These individuals are often not trained in legal proceedings, grammar, or punctuation. They serve as deposition officers who hit record, identify speakers, and make brief notes. Yet, they are not the ones producing the final transcript. Often, minimum-wage workers with no legal training are tasked with managing transcript production, introducing a dangerous lack of oversight. Years later, if an error is discovered in the transcript, the original team could be long gone—and no one can be held accountable.

The American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) has attempted to fill this gap by offering a certification program for digital reporters. However, it lacks the depth and rigor of the CSR exam. It does not include testing on state-specific laws or robust language skills. This creates a professional chasm between certified reporters and digital recording operators—a gap that the legal field cannot afford to ignore.

A Growing Threat: Big Tech and the Push for Profit

The increased use of digital and AI-based transcription is not driven by a desire for accuracy—it’s driven by economics. Big transcription companies see an opportunity to maximize profits by replacing highly trained professionals with software and underpaid, unqualified workers. But in doing so, they’re threatening the very foundation of legal recordkeeping.

AI/ASR, when used in a vacuum without certification or human oversight, is not just insufficient—it’s dangerous. Legal outcomes depend on the integrity of the record, and if that record is flawed, the consequences can be devastating for justice.

The Only Path Forward: Equal Standards for All

If AI/ASR is ever to be accepted in legal proceedings, it must undergo the same rigorous certification process as steno machine and voice writers. There needs to be a new category of reporter: the AI/ASR Reporter. This person must:

  1. Take the same CSR exam as their human counterparts.
  2. Be in the room (or virtual space) during proceedings.
  3. Be responsible for scoping and editing the AI feed in real-time.
  4. Submit the transcript alongside steno and voice writers under identical conditions and deadlines.
  5. Be the responsible party from the moment of capture to the final transcript delivery.

Only by requiring AI/ASR reporters to meet these professional benchmarks can we ensure that the technology serves the court, rather than undermines it.

However, there’s a major hurdle: the CSR exam does not allow recording of dictation. Since ASR is dependent on recordings to function, this creates an inherent incompatibility. Changing this rule to accommodate AI would degrade the standards that exist to ensure quality and accountability. And that’s a risk the legal field simply cannot take.

Conclusion: The Human Touch Still Matters Most

While technology will undoubtedly continue to evolve, accuracy, accountability, and certification remain the cornerstones of reliable court reporting. The steno machine, with its unmatched capability for instant readback and proven legal trustworthiness, remains the gold standard. Voicewriting has carved out a role in certain jurisdictions, but it still cannot match the machine’s immediacy. AI/ASR, for all its futuristic appeal, is not ready for the courtroom—at least not without human certification and oversight.

Until AI/ASR reporters can take the same certification exams and assume the same responsibilities, they should not be permitted to operate in legal settings. The stakes are simply too high, and the risks too great. In court, there’s no room for uncertainty—and no substitute for a certified, competent, and accountable human reporter.

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.

2 thoughts on “Steno Still Stands Strong”

Leave a comment