Fail to Adapt to Disruption and Pay the Price – Court Reporters Heed the Warning

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, UncategorizedTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Adapt or Be Replaced: Court Reporting in the Age of Technological Disruption

In today’s rapidly evolving digital world, the court reporting industry stands at a pivotal crossroads. We are beyond what Malcolm Gladwell famously described as “the tipping point“—we have already crossed the threshold of irreversible change. The digital disruption is here, and resisting it is no longer an option. Our challenge now is to lead the change, not to fight against it.

Contrary to the misconception that court reporting is an antiquated profession, it is, in fact, one of the most technologically advanced sectors in the legal ecosystem. Our community—comprising around 27,000 professionals—utilizes cutting-edge tools like computer-aided transcription (CAT), AI-assisted scoping, and real-time digital delivery systems.

Yet, we remain one of the best-kept secrets in the tech world. The sophisticated technology we rely on is marketed and tailored almost exclusively to our niche market, making it relatively unknown outside our circles. We adopt it, consume it, and refine it, but the open market rarely sees it. As a result, the public—and sometimes even our adjacent legal partners—underestimates how digitally native and innovative our work truly is.

Like many other industries that have faced significant disruption from emerging technologies, the question is no longer whether change will come, but how to adapt to it. The warning signs are clear: companies and professions that fail to embrace innovation or guide its responsible implementation are often replaced by those that do. For court reporters, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. Like many other industries that have faced significant disruption from emerging technologies, the question is no longer whether change will come, but how to adapt to it. The warning signs are clear – companies and professions that fail to embrace innovation or guide its responsible implementation are often replaced by those that do. For court reporters, this is both a challenge and an opportunity.

The Cost of Failing to Adapt

History is replete with examples of industries that did not heed the warnings of disruption. Kodak, once a titan of the photography world, failed to embrace digital imaging technology. Blockbuster resisted the streaming model pioneered by Netflix until it was too late. Nokia and BlackBerry, both dominant mobile phone manufacturers, lost their edge by underestimating the iPhone’s game-changing potential. As documented in a Thomasnet article on disrupted companies, the failure to innovate led these firms from market dominance to near-obsolescence.

The court reporting industry is not immune to these forces. The rise of automatic speech recognition (ASR) and computer-aided transcription (CAT) technologies, paired with artificial intelligence, has introduced new ways of capturing the spoken word in legal settings. While these tools promise speed and cost-effectiveness, they also threaten to blur the lines between certified professionals and unregulated operators.

Digital Innovation vs. Digital Disruption

A Profession Facing New Realities

In the ASR-integrated CAT space, there are now three prominent solutions with distinct differences in how they engage professional court reporters. Listed here in order of technological maturity, launch date, and industry integration:

  • Eclipse Boost, developed by Advantage Software over a decade ago, is the most sophisticated ASR-integrated CAT system on the market. It is actively used by certified court reporters and was the first of its kind to integrate ASR with traditional CAT software while keeping the reporter fully in control of the transcript production process. This model represents the only ASR-integrated CAT system currently endorsed by and used within the certified court reporting community.
  • ProCAT’s DepoDash is an AI-powered, cloud-based platform that predates MAXScribe. It delivers on-demand verbatim transcripts using ASR technology and employs scopists to edit the transcript in real time as the proceeding is happening. Although DepoDash offers innovative real-time collaboration features, it operates without the involvement of certified court reporters, raising concerns about transcript reliability and professional oversight.
  • Stenograph’s MAXScribe is a full ASR-driven digital reporting solution designed to operate without a certified court reporter. It integrates real-time ASR translation and collaborative editing tools to streamline transcript production, but similarly lacks the professional accountability expected in legal recordkeeping.

There are now four primary methods of capturing a verbatim record:

  1. Traditional Machine Stenography: The tried-and-true gold-standard method used by certified stenographers who rely on their skills and training to produce highly accurate transcripts. This method is still far superior to all other methods of creating a transcript and protecting the record.
  2. Voice Mask Stenography (Voice Writing): Voice writers speak into a voice-silencing mask and use CAT software to transcribe their dictated input. Importantly, they may only record their own voice—not the room—and are not allowed to access audio recordings when transcribing from the Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) exam.
  3. Stenography Augmented with ASR-Enhanced CAT Software: Tools like Eclipse Boost, developed by Advantage Software more than ten years ago, integrate ASR with traditional CAT workflows, but maintain the human reporter firmly in control of the editing and final transcript. This hybrid system enhances productivity and speed while preserving accuracy and professionalism.
  4. Pure ASR/CAT Software with Uncertified Operators: This method relies entirely on automatic speech recognition technology paired with a CAT software, but without the involvement of certified court reporters. Two notable examples are ProCAT’s “DepoDash” and Stenograph’s “MAXScribe.” DepoDash employs scopists to edit the transcript in real time as the proceeding occurs, while MAXScribe produces transcripts using ASR with collaborative editing tools. Both systems raise significant concerns about the absence of professional certification, accountability, and the preservation of transcript integrity in legal proceedings.

Certification as the Equalizer

What differentiates professionals from unqualified operators is certification. When voice writers sought entry into the profession, they met resistance. Over time, however, the community developed standardized certifications that upheld the integrity of the field. Today, voice writers can sit beside traditional stenographers and take the same CSR test, both written and skills-based, to earn the same professional recognition. The only difference is that voice writers must use a voice mask that does not pick up room noise, and they may not listen to their recordings while transcribing.

This model provides a viable framework for the future inclusion of ASR reporters. If ASR/CAT practitioners are to be accepted as legitimate court reporters, they too must be subject to rigorous certification. This should include:

  • A skills test identical in difficulty and format to the one taken by stenographers and voice writers.
  • A prohibition against using audio recordings during the transcription portion of the test, just as voice writers are prohibited.
  • Mandatory deletion of any room recordings immediately after the exam, to ensure that the transcript is produced solely from notes in CAT software.

Certification would not only establish accountability, but also create a professional standard that filters out those using fringe or unsophisticated technology in ways that could compromise transcript integrity.

The Danger of Unregulated Technology

Without certification requirements, there’s a risk of allowing underqualified individuals to operate under the guise of court reporters. Many ASR systems that output to Microsoft Word or basic editing software lack the precision tools necessary for legal transcription. These systems might suffice for casual dictation, but they fall short in the legal environment, where formatting, timestamps, speaker identification, and rigorous accuracy are essential.

Legal proceedings are not environments where “close enough” is acceptable. Transcripts influence appeals, determine legal outcomes, and establish official records. It’s imperative that anyone involved in their creation is held to the highest standards.

The Role of Human Judgment

Despite technological advancements, the human element remains vital. Legal discourse often includes jargon, overlapping speech, regional dialects, and emotional intensity. Human court reporters bring contextual awareness and judgment that no algorithm can replicate. Even the most advanced ASR needs oversight and correction. This is why the integration of ASR into CAT software like Eclipse Boost is successful—it supports the human, it doesn’t replace them.

Advantage Software’s foresight in developing Eclipse Boost over a decade ago demonstrates that innovation and professionalism can coexist. Their model is a powerful reminder that the court reporting industry doesn’t have to choose between tradition and technology—it can choose both, thoughtfully.

The Role of Responsible Charge

A cornerstone of professional court reporting is the concept of “responsible charge.” This means that the person who monitors the proceeding and captures the record must also be the person who certifies and produces the final transcript. They are the accountable professional, responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the record from start to finish.

This role is critical because it ensures that no part of the record creation process is outsourced to an unqualified third party or subjected to tampering. A court reporter who is in responsible charge is ethically and legally bound to uphold the standards of the profession throughout the entire process. Importantly, a court reporting agency itself cannot serve as the responsible charge. This has been underscored by policy changes such as those highlighted in the Los Angeles Superior Court’s recent update, which now requires explicit identification of the reporter in responsible charge—not the agency. For further reference, see the article “Why Are Court Reporting Agencies Now On the Record? A Look at the New L.A. Superior Court Form and the Responsible Charge” (Steno Imperium, 2025).

As we evaluate how to integrate ASR technology into the field, it is imperative that ASR reporters adhere to this same principle. The individual who monitors the ASR output, who ensures its fidelity during the proceeding, must be the same person who edits, certifies, and submits the transcript. Only by maintaining this chain of accountability can we preserve the credibility of the legal record.

This is not simply about maintaining tradition; it is about protecting the public interest. If an ASR-generated transcript is edited or reviewed by someone other than the responsible charge of the proceeding, the integrity of that transcript is inherently compromised. Therefore, any certification or professional standard established for ASR/CAT reporters must include the requirement that the ASR operator be the person in responsible charge throughout the entire process.

A cornerstone of professional court reporting is the concept of “responsible charge.” This means that the person who monitors the proceeding and captures the record must also be the person who certifies and produces the final transcript. They are the accountable professional, responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the record from start to finish.

This role is critical because it ensures that no part of the record creation process is outsourced to an unqualified third party or subjected to tampering. A court reporter who is in responsible charge is ethically and legally bound to uphold the standards of the profession throughout the entire process.

As we evaluate how to integrate ASR technology into the field, it is imperative that ASR reporters adhere to this same principle. The individual who monitors the ASR output, who ensures its fidelity during the proceeding, must be the same person who edits, certifies, and submits the transcript. Only by maintaining this chain of accountability can we preserve the credibility of the legal record.

This is not simply about maintaining tradition; it is about protecting the public interest. If an ASR-generated transcript is edited or reviewed by someone other than the responsible charge of the proceeding, the integrity of that transcript is inherently compromised. Therefore, any certification or professional standard established for ASR/CAT reporters must include the requirement that the ASR operator be the person in responsible charge throughout the entire process.

A Call to National and State Associations

To ensure lasting protection for the court reporting profession, national and state court reporting associations must take a unified stand and adopt a formal Responsible Charge Statement. Such a statement would codify the requirement that the person capturing the record is the same individual who certifies and produces the final transcript—reinforcing a single point of professional accountability.

By adopting this position, associations can draw a clear line between certified professionals and unlicensed, unregulated participants entering the industry through ASR-driven shortcuts. This proactive step would eliminate ambiguity, protect consumers, and safeguard the high standards the legal system relies upon.

With a Responsible Charge Statement embedded into testing, licensing, and certification criteria, associations can lead the charge to future-proof the profession. Without it, the industry risks being overrun by uncertified operators who lack the legal and ethical responsibilities that define a true court reporter.

The Peril of Courts Owning the Record

One of the greatest emerging threats to the integrity of the judicial process is the trend toward courts using electronic recordings and assuming the role of official record-keeper. While this may seem efficient or cost-effective on the surface, it undermines a critical safeguard in our legal system: the independence of the record creator.

As outlined in the article “The Peril of Courts Owning the Record”, when courts take on the dual role of conducting proceedings and producing the record, they effectively eliminate a crucial check on judicial power. Stenographic court reporters are independent officers of the court. They are trained, licensed, and ethically bound to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the record. They are not subject to the institutional biases or conflicts of interest that can arise when the judiciary controls both the event and its documentation.

Centralizing record ownership within the court system invites risks of error, omission, or manipulation—whether intentional or accidental. It also diminishes the public’s trust in the fairness and transparency of legal proceedings. Keeping certified court reporters in the role of responsible charge is not only a matter of tradition; it is a structural necessity to preserve due process and protect against potential ab

Guarding the Profession’s Future

In the business world, hostile takeovers often force change upon stagnant companies. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance outlines how these actions are signals that companies must evolve or be overtaken. Court reporting faces a similar threat—not from a hostile bidder, but from the unchecked adoption of unvetted technology.

We can either lead the evolution of our profession or be led by forces that may not share our commitment to accuracy, ethics, and professionalism. Requiring certification for ASR/CAT reporters is how we protect the profession and ensure its integrity.

Adapt with Standards, Not Compromise

Adaptation doesn’t mean dilution. Traditional machine stenographers don’t need to surrender their workflow to new tools. But the profession as a whole must decide how to address the reality of multiple reporting methods emerging in the marketplace. Certification is the path forward.

By insisting on rigorous standards for anyone using ASR/CAT systems—just as we did with voice writers—we preserve the credibility of court reporting. We protect the public from poor-quality transcripts and fraudulent practitioners. And we maintain our place as indispensable, certified professionals.

The future of court reporting will include multiple paths to verbatim capture. But only one path guarantees continued respect and relevance – adaptation through integrity, accountability, and professional standards.

It is time to bring ASR reporters into the fold—not by resisting them, but by certifying them, regulating their practices, and demanding they meet the same high bar the rest of us have cleared. That is how we stay strong in the face of disruption. That is how we endure.

Sources and Further Reading

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