The Hidden Cost of AI and Digital Reporters is A Looming Crisis in the Court Reporting Industry

In the rush to embrace new technologies, the court reporting industry is undergoing a disruption that, for many professionals, feels more like destruction. AI transcription tools, digital reporters, and automated editing systems are being marketed as sleek, efficient solutions to modern demands. But behind the scenes, the very people who hold the system together—scopists, proofreaders, and certified court reporters—are being pushed out, underpaid, and overworked. The result is a deteriorating standard of transcript quality and a looming crisis of workforce attrition that threatens the entire profession.

The False Promise of “Faster and Cheaper”

Tech vendors and some reporting agencies are touting AI and digital audio systems as faster and more cost-effective than traditional stenographic reporting. But anyone actually working with these transcripts knows better. Yes, the initial capture might be immediate. But getting from rough digital file to final, usable transcript is anything but fast. The process of reviewing, correcting, and editing AI-generated content—or audio-based recordings transcribed by unskilled operators—requires immense human labor, often more than it would take to simply do the job right the first time through stenographic methods.

Proofreaders and scopists are now being handed what can only be described as messes: raw files riddled with inaccuracies, lacking punctuation, filled with untrans and dropped sentences. These aren’t polished drafts in need of a final check. They’re barely coherent transcripts that require hours of editing—and often without the benefit of audio or the original steno file. These workers are effectively being asked to do multiple jobs for the rate of one—and many are saying no.

Proofreaders Are Quitting. Here’s Why.

The fallout is predictable: skilled scopists and proofreaders are quitting in droves. The work has become thankless and unsustainable. What used to be a vital second set of eyes on a nearly-final document has devolved into being the sole quality control checkpoint for entire transcripts—often at sub-minimum wage rates. One former court reporter, now working as a proofreader, recently described earning just $8 an hour due to the volume of errors per page and lack of formatting in the files she received.

This isn’t proofreading—it’s unpaid scoping. And it’s being done under unrealistic expectations, inadequate pay, and without the professional respect the role deserves. If this trend continues, there will be a serious shortage of proofers and scopists willing to work under these conditions, compounding delays, increasing costs, and further degrading the quality of legal transcripts.

Replacing Reporters? A Dangerous Misconception

Let’s be clear: scopists and proofreaders are essential, but they cannot replace court reporters. Court reporters are the official custodians of the record. Their real-time transcription, accuracy, and ability to manage proceedings are what ensure the integrity of legal documentation. Replacing them with unregulated digital recording systems or AI tools, then attempting to “clean it up later,” not only shifts legal responsibility away from the point of capture but also introduces a minefield of errors and inconsistencies.

Scopists and proofers work downstream, and they do not hold legal responsibility for transcript accuracy. Expecting them to retroactively reconstruct what happened in a deposition or courtroom—often with partial information—is both unfair and impractical. Moreover, the professionals being handed this burden aren’t being paid enough to justify their role becoming the new frontline of accuracy.

Technology That Takes Us Backward

Ironically, this technological “advancement” is a giant leap backward. Fifty years ago, in the 1970s, dictation machines and typists were the norm. Court reporters would dictate their notes, and typists—paid fairly for their time—would transcribe them. In 1970, transcript rates averaged around $3.00 per page. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $18 per page today. In that economic context, the cost of having multiple humans touch a transcript—reporter, typist, editor—was manageable.

But today’s transcript rates haven’t kept up with inflation, while expectations have ballooned. The industry is now attempting to achieve the same level of quality at one-third of the cost, with three times the workload, and none of the skilled infrastructure in place. It’s a financial model that is fundamentally unsustainable. What worked 50 years ago at fair wages doesn’t work today at cut-rate prices.

The Illusion of Savings: Triple the Cost, Triple the Trouble

While AI and digital solutions are sold as cost-cutting measures, the real-world math tells a different story. Instead of paying one highly trained court reporter to scope and deliver a polished transcript, firms are now paying:

1. A digital recorder or minimally trained “reporter” to capture audio;
2. A scopist to interpret and organize the text;
3. A proofreader to do extensive editing and corrections;
4. Additional time for corrections, quality reviews, and fixing missed content.

All told, that adds up to more time, more labor, and more cost—often two to three times what a single steno reporter would charge to produce a transcript that requires minimal revision. The perceived savings evaporate quickly, and the additional burden placed on support professionals threatens to collapse the system entirely.

The Economics of Exploitation & How Profit-Driven Disruption is Reshaping the Transcript Pipeline

The driving force behind the AI and digital reporting movement isn’t the professionals who actually create the record—it’s the national agencies, vendors, and software companies like Stenograph and Procat, many of whom have never set foot in a deposition or courtroom. These decision-makers build tools based on abstract workflows, not firsthand experience, and they lack a true understanding of the skill, responsibility, and precision that court reporters bring to the job. Their motivation is clear: reduce costs by eliminating highly skilled reporters and replace them with cheaper labor and digital tools, assuming the transcript can still be cobbled together downstream. But they grossly underestimate the complexity of the work and the economic chain it supports. By cutting court reporters, they believe they’re saving money—when in reality, they’re destabilizing a fragile, interdependent system of subcontracted professionals who are now re-evaluating their worth.

Scopists and proofreaders, traditionally supporting court reporters by editing already-clean steno files, are now being asked to clean up disorganized, error-ridden transcripts produced by AI and digital recorders. This isn’t just scoping anymore—it’s reconstructive transcription, and many scopists are demanding higher rates accordingly. While a court reporter’s scoped file might command $1.25 per page, the cleanup required for digital/AI transcripts often justifies $4.00 per page or more. And here’s the ripple effect: scopists now know they can earn more working on AI/digital jobs, so they’re less inclined to accept lower-paying work from court reporters, unless those rates rise too. Reporters, in turn, are being squeezed from both ends—expected to deliver quality while paying more to subcontractors who are understandably unwilling to shoulder the burden without fair compensation. The economics are shifting rapidly, not by design, but as a consequence of a profit-driven system that failed to account for the real labor behind the transcript. But once that shift occurs, court reporters themselves will have no choice but to raise their rates to cover the increased subcontracting costs—and that introduces a new layer of economic tension.

Attorneys and law firms are already pushing back on what they perceive as skyrocketing court reporting fees, but what many don’t realize is that reporters themselves are often still earning what they earned 30, even 50 years ago. The real cost increases are coming from the big national agencies—many of which are now doubling or tripling rates to clients while failing to pass any meaningful portion of that markup downstream to the professionals doing the work. So while the legal industry is being told that technology is the path to savings, what’s actually happening is a redistribution of cost and profit that leaves the professionals underpaid, overburdened, and increasingly unwilling to stay in the game. It’s not just inefficient—it’s unsustainable.

So while the legal industry is being told that technology is the path to savings, what’s actually happening is a redistribution of cost and profit that leaves the professionals underpaid, overburdened, and increasingly unwilling to stay in the game. It’s not just inefficient—it’s unsustainable. And for many court reporters, it’s starting to feel intentional. The big national agencies and vendors profiting from this shift aren’t merely ignoring the fallout—they’re accelerating it, creating conditions so unworkable that experienced reporters are being squeezed out by design. Whether by negligence or strategy, the outcome is the same: the quiet elimination of skilled stenographers under the guise of innovation.

The Real Consequence: Decline in Quality and Professional Pride

Seasoned proofreaders are now voicing frustration and burnout. Many express disbelief at the lack of quality in the work they’re handed—some of it coming not just from digital reporters, but even from credentialed steno reporters who’ve abandoned scoping altogether to save money. This erosion of pride and professionalism is disheartening. Longtime reporters once took ownership of every transcript that carried their name. Now, there’s a growing trend of outsourcing the bulk of the work to others, and paying them poorly to do it.

This commodification of skill is driving experienced professionals away—and once they’re gone, they won’t return. We’re not just losing manpower; we’re losing institutional knowledge, quality control, and the mentorship that once raised the bar for newcomers in the field.

The Path Forward: Reinforcing Standards, Not Replacing Them

The court reporting industry must take a hard look at what’s happening. Technology can be a tool, but it should never be a substitute for skill, ethics, and responsibility. We must:

• Uphold standards for what constitutes a “proofed” transcript;
• Pay scopists and proofers fairly for the work they’re being asked to do;
• Educate clients about the differences between digital and stenographic reporting;
• Reinvest in training and support for new reporters, encouraging quality over shortcuts.

We must also reject the dangerous idea that AI or digital tools can fully replace human oversight. They can supplement the process, but without skilled hands guiding them, they will never be capable of meeting the high standards legal proceedings demand.

Quality Can’t Be Automated

The foundation of justice is a clear, accurate, and timely record. That record is only possible because of the professionals who create, refine, and verify it at every stage. As the industry leans into automation and outsourcing, it risks losing the very precision and trustworthiness that give transcripts their value.

If we continue down this path, we won’t just be replacing humans with machines—we’ll be replacing integrity with convenience, and professionalism with chaos. And that’s a price none of us can afford.

Disclaimer

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

• All content herein reflects the author’s personal commentary, protected under the First Amendment.
• Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.