The Digital Deception – How Non-Stenographic “Court Reporters” Are Undermining Legal Proceedings in Texas

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

Across Texas, a troubling trend is gaining traction within the legal system — and it’s eroding trust in a profession that is foundational to justice: court reporting. For attorneys and legal professionals, especially those involved in depositions, the issue is no longer just about finding a court reporter. It’s about ensuring that the person showing up is actually a qualified, licensed professional — not an unlicensed technician operating a recording device under the misleading label of “digital court reporter.”

This isn’t a minor miscommunication or an innocent mistake. It’s a calculated business decision by certain court reporting firms to maximize profits at the expense of legal integrity, courtroom accuracy, and state law. And it’s wreaking havoc on the legal community in Texas.

The Rise of “Digital Reporters” — and the Collapse of Standards

In recent years, some court reporting agencies have begun substituting certified stenographic court reporters with so-called “digital reporters.” These individuals are not licensed court reporters, do not take down the record in realtime, and often lack the legal training and ethical grounding that certified stenographers undergo. Many are simply trained to press “record” and capture audio.

The problem? In Texas, that’s not just a questionable business practice — it’s a legal violation.

The Texas Government Code and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are clear: depositions require licensed shorthand reporters. These are professionals who have passed stringent testing, are held to high ethical standards, and are equipped to produce verbatim transcripts under pressure, in real time, with accuracy and impartiality. Sending someone without that licensure — and without disclosure — is not only unethical but illegal.

Firms Skirting the Law — and Undermining the Profession

Court reporting firms that use digital operators in place of certified stenographers are knowingly bending, if not outright breaking, the rules. Their motivations are simple: profit and market share. By paying a digital operator a fraction of what they’d pay a licensed reporter, they slash their overhead while charging the same fees to law firms. It’s a bait-and-switch — and many attorneys don’t even realize it’s happening until it’s too late.

These firms often don’t notify counsel ahead of time that a deposition will be taken by a digital reporter. In some cases, they cancel at the last minute or falsely claim that a licensed reporter backed out, when the reality is they never had one scheduled. Meanwhile, the responsibility — and the stress — falls on attorneys and their staff, who are left scrambling to find a legitimate replacement or determine whether the deposition can proceed legally at all.

This strategy is not just underhanded; it’s dangerously deceptive. It damages reputations, delays proceedings, and casts doubt on the reliability of the entire legal transcript process. Some depositions — even complex, high-stakes expert depositions — have had to be repeated due to unusable transcripts produced by digital reporters. Trials have seen evidence thrown out. Legal budgets are strained, and clients are left footing the bill for rework.

Misinformation and Misleading Practices

One of the most disturbing aspects of this trend is the deliberate obfuscation of the truth. Attorneys are often told the firm has a “reporter” lined up, only to discover at the deposition that the person is merely operating a recording device. These operators often begin with a disclaimer script that forces counsel to object immediately or lose the ability to contest the use of the transcript later — catching attorneys off guard, especially those unfamiliar with these deceptive practices.

Even worse, firms are violating the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure by treating nonstenographic depositions as if they were stenographic. Under the rules, a deposition that is not taken by a licensed court reporter cannot be read and signed by the witness in the same way a stenographic transcript can. But that doesn’t stop some firms from sending these transcripts for review, pretending they are equivalent, further muddying the legal waters and jeopardizing case integrity.

The Human Cost: Misplaced Blame and Professional Disrespect

This bait-and-switch practice doesn’t just hurt attorneys — it unfairly tarnishes the reputation of real court reporters. When attorneys receive poorly transcribed or unusable transcripts, they often blame the “reporter” — not realizing they were never working with a real one to begin with. The result is a growing mistrust of the profession, all while certified reporters, who have spent years honing their craft, find themselves sidelined in favor of cheaper, unqualified alternatives.

Meanwhile, legal professionals are inundated with last-minute calls and emails from frantic colleagues trying to fix the mess left behind by these deceptive firms. Schedulers, paralegals, and attorneys are all caught in the fallout — juggling caseloads, managing court deadlines, and now being forced to double-check whether their deposition will even be legally valid.

Attorneys Must Take a Stand — and Educate Their Clients

Attorneys in Texas need to be vigilant. It’s not enough to ensure your own depositions are covered by licensed professionals — you must also inform your clients that the opposing party may be hiring these unlicensed digital operators. Many lawyers are shocked when they realize that even if they hire a legitimate firm, the transcript from their opponent’s deposition could still be flawed or unusable if taken by a digital reporter.

The defense starts with awareness. Attorneys should ask explicitly whether a licensed Texas Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) will be covering a deposition — and they should get it in writing. They must object on the record when an unlicensed person is presented as a reporter, and they must educate clients about the downstream risks of allowing such transcripts into evidence.

It’s not about attacking individuals who work as digital recorders — it’s about defending the integrity of the judicial process, the rule of law, and the right to accurate, reliable transcripts.

Time for Accountability

The Texas legal community cannot remain passive while these deceptive practices persist. State regulatory bodies must enforce existing laws and hold firms accountable for substituting digital reporters under false pretenses. Bar associations, court reporting associations, and litigation support professionals should speak up, share experiences, and support transparency.

Legal proceedings rely on an accurate, impartial record. Allowing unqualified individuals to masquerade as licensed professionals is not just a regulatory breach — it’s a betrayal of the justice system. It compromises outcomes, undermines trust, and disrespects the hard-working professionals who do the job the right way.

This must stop — and it must stop now.

***To unsubscribe, simply click on the UNSUBSCRIBE button below – it’s literally found on every single newsletter in the universe. It looks like this, below:

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.

One thought on “The Digital Deception – How Non-Stenographic “Court Reporters” Are Undermining Legal Proceedings in Texas”

Leave a comment