In recent years, the rise of digital court reporting has stirred significant debate within the legal transcription community. Proponents argue that digital reporting — often certified through the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) — provides a viable alternative to traditional stenography. Yet, for seasoned legal professionals and advocates of judicial integrity, this shift raises serious concerns. The core issue isn’t simply about innovation versus tradition — it’s about the legitimacy, reliability, and accountability of the record-keeping method used in our courts.
While AAERT has been in existence for over three decades and offers certification for digital reporters and transcribers, its credentials are not held in the same regard as those of licensed stenographers — and for good reason. In fact, within the professional world of court reporting, AAERT certifications are widely seen as insufficient substitutes for the rigorous training, licensure, and real-time capabilities that define a certified stenographic reporter.
The Misconception of Certification Parity
The key argument made by digital court reporting advocates is that “digital court reporters are certified — through AAERT.” But this assertion glosses over the deeper realities of certification standards, enforcement, and function. Not all certifications carry equal weight. While AAERT may issue credentials, they lack the statutory authority, institutional oversight, and technical robustness found in state licensing systems for stenographers.
Stenographers must often undergo two to four years of formal education, pass state or national licensure exams (such as the RPR, CSR, or RMR), and meet continuing education requirements to remain in good standing. They are often governed by state agencies or judicial boards, subject to ethical codes, and held personally accountable for the integrity of the record.
In contrast, AAERT’s certification process — while structured — is relatively minimal. A digital court reporter can be certified through a multiple-choice exam and a practical test involving audio recording, with far less emphasis on live interaction, real-time accuracy, or procedural legal knowledge. There is no state licensure or legal mandate requiring AAERT certification in most jurisdictions, and many digital operators in practice are uncertified altogether.
Real-Time vs. Deferred Accountability
One of the starkest differences between stenographers and digital reporters lies in how the record is captured and preserved. Certified stenographers are trained to produce real-time transcripts — verbatim records created as testimony unfolds. They can instantly flag inaudible responses, seek clarification from witnesses, and ensure the record is accurate as it happens. This capacity not only protects the parties in a proceeding but also ensures that attorneys, judges, and appellate courts have immediate access to a trustworthy record when it matters most.
By contrast, digital court reporters rely on audio capture, typically recording proceedings for later transcription — sometimes by entirely different individuals, in remote locations, and days or weeks later. Even with AAERT certification, this “record now, transcribe later” model introduces critical vulnerabilities: corrupted audio, crosstalk, missed words, technical malfunctions, and human error in post-production transcription. These are not hypotheticals; they are recurring issues in court systems that have experimented with digital replacements.
And while stenographers sign and swear to the accuracy of their work, the digital model often separates the original recorder from the transcriber, muddying the chain of accountability. In legal proceedings, where the verbatim record is often the basis for appeals, settlements, or criminal sentencing, that separation is a dangerous gamble.
Institutional Preferences Tell the Story
Perhaps the most telling indication of AAERT’s limited legitimacy in the court reporting world is found in institutional preferences. Federal courts, superior courts, and appellate jurisdictions overwhelmingly continue to require stenographers — particularly in high-stakes or complex cases. While some lower-level or administrative hearings may accept digital methods due to budget constraints, courts still default to stenography when accuracy, speed, and reliability are non-negotiable.
Why? Because court administrators, judges, and litigators have seen the difference in performance firsthand. A live stenographer not only delivers a transcript that meets immediate and long-term needs — they become part of the judicial process, actively protecting the record and the rights of all participants.
AAERT Acknowledges Its Own Limits
To its credit, AAERT does not claim to be a replacement for state-licensed stenographic systems. Its mission is to promote standards in digital and electronic recording, not to regulate or enforce licensure. It lacks statutory authority and is not recognized as a governing body by any state bar or judicial oversight board. Even AAERT itself has acknowledged that there must be a trained, certified professional in the room — whether that’s a stenographer, a voice writer, or a digital reporter.
But therein lies the problem: In real-world practice, many digital reporting services cut corners. Budget-conscious courts and private agencies often deploy unlicensed, uncertified recorders — or rely on remote audio capture with no professional present in the room at all. AAERT’s existence is no safeguard against such practices, and its certification is too often used as a veneer of credibility over an inherently riskier model.
Protecting Due Process, Not Turf
Critics of stenographic advocacy sometimes accuse stenographers of simply trying to protect their turf. But this isn’t about market share or nostalgia. It’s about protecting due process and ensuring the judicial system runs on an accurate, verifiable, and transparent record. The stakes are too high — people’s freedom, financial futures, and legal rights — to rely on anything less.
Stenographic court reporters have earned their place through proven performance, legal recognition, and professional accountability. AAERT certification, while a nod toward standardization in the digital space, does not — and cannot — match the gold standard that stenography represents.
In summary, AAERT certification may exist, but that doesn’t make it equal — or even comparable — to the rigorous credentials held by certified stenographers. In the eyes of courts, legal professionals, and anyone who understands the importance of an accurate record, the distinction is clear. Certification alone is not enough. What matters is who is behind the certification, how the record is created, and what standards are enforced to protect the integrity of justice.
Until AAERT — and the digital court reporting industry at large — can meet those benchmarks, their certifications will continue to be viewed by the professional court reporting community not as legitimate substitutes, but as inadequate alternatives. And when it comes to preserving the voice of the courtroom, “adequate” simply isn’t good enough.
STENOIMPERIUM 