Save Steno Now, or Lose It Forever – Why Court Reporters Can’t Be Replaced by AI

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

In courtrooms across the country, an invisible but critical line of defense is under threat. Not from outside interference, but from quiet decisions being made in budgets and boardrooms—decisions that say: “AI is cheaper. Let’s use that instead.”

On the surface, this might seem practical. Artificial intelligence is making strides in transcription. Court reporting is expensive. Why not automate it?

But here’s the reality: if we allow AI to replace human court reporters—even in part—we don’t just lose jobs. We lose an entire professional infrastructure. And once it’s gone, we can’t get it back.

This is not just about keeping a profession alive. This is about preserving a system that safeguards truth, fairness, and justice. If we let it collapse, we won’t be able to rebuild it when we realize what we’ve lost.

AI Is Cheaper—But It’s Not Better

No one disputes that AI-based transcription has come a long way. It can transcribe meetings, phone calls, and podcasts with decent accuracy. But a courtroom is not a podcast. It’s a high-stakes, high-pressure environment where people speak fast, interrupt, mumble, whisper, cry, or shout. Multiple speakers talk at once. The terminology is dense, the context nuanced.

AI doesn’t stop proceedings to ask a witness to repeat a name. It doesn’t clarify who’s speaking when voices overlap. It doesn’t understand legal context, nor does it carry legal accountability.

AI can support, but it cannot replace, the role of a certified court reporter. And when it tries to, justice becomes less accurate, less reliable, and ultimately, less fair.

Once It’s Gone, It’s Gone

Some say: “Let AI take over the easy cases. Keep humans for the hard ones.” But that’s not how this works.

Stenographic court reporting isn’t just a job—it’s a professional ecosystem. It includes schools that train new talent. Manufacturers who build and maintain specialized machines. Software companies that innovate. Certifying bodies that enforce standards. Experienced professionals who mentor and teach.

This ecosystem only functions when there’s consistent, widespread demand for human court reporters. If we let demand dip—even moderately—the whole infrastructure begins to collapse. Schools close. Machine production halts. Software stagnates. Certification becomes irrelevant.

And then, when courts inevitably hit the limits of AI—when it fails in complex trials or appeals—there will be no professionals left to fill the gap. No schools. No tools. No fallback.

🧩 It’s Not Just a Job—It’s a System

This profession isn’t declining—it’s rebuilding.

Today, stenographic schools are overflowing with new students. Many have waitlists due to increased interest and enrollment. The addition of voicewriters—trained professionals who use speech recognition as a tool, not a replacement—has expanded the pipeline, helping qualified graduates enter the field faster.

The result? We are now on track to replenish our numbers and meet the demand created by retiring reporters.

The shortage is no longer the threat.

The real danger is this: that we’ll be replaced before we’re ready—before this revitalized workforce even has the chance to serve. The risk is not in capacity, but in being sidelined by AI tools that are not built to uphold the same legal, ethical, and accuracy standards.

If You Want Us Tomorrow, You Have to Choose Us Today

Let me tell you a story.

I used to work in sales at one of the world’s largest technology distributors. At one point, our competitors engaged in a full-blown price war, trying to undercut us into extinction. Everyone expected us to slash prices just to survive.

Our CEO told us: no price cuts. Hold the line. Stay true to our value.

My customers weren’t thrilled. They said, “Give me a better deal or I’ll go to your competitors.” But I told them, “If you want me to be here tomorrow—if you want us, this company, to be here—then buy from me today. Sure, you can get it cheaper. But you won’t have me tomorrow. You won’t have this service, this expertise, this partnership. We can’t survive if we give everything away.”

That message landed. People realized: the real value wasn’t just in the price—it was in the relationship, the reliability, the long-term support.

The same principle applies to court reporting today. You might think AI is cheaper—but if you want us tomorrow, if you want reliable, human, legally certified transcripts, you need to stand with us now. Because we won’t be here if you don’t.

This Isn’t Anti-Technology—It’s Pro-Human Accuracy

Court reporters are not technophobes. We’ve embraced innovation for decades. Our machines are specialized computers. Our software integrates real-time delivery, digital archiving, and cloud-based tools. Many of us already use AI to assist with transcript review and formatting.

We are not against technology—we are against careless replacement.

We believe in human-led, tech-assisted transcription. Let AI support the work—flag errors, speed up reviews, help with post-processing. But the foundation must remain human. Because only humans can understand the moment, the context, the stakes.

Why It Matters to Everyone

This isn’t just a professional turf war. This affects every lawyer, every judge, every defendant, and every victim. It affects appeals, verdicts, civil rights, and legal accountability.

Imagine a witness misquoted. An objection missed. A confession transcribed incorrectly. AI doesn’t raise its hand to clarify. It doesn’t know what’s at stake. And it certainly doesn’t sign a legal certification guaranteeing the transcript’s accuracy under penalty of law.

Court reporters do.

What Needs to Happen

To protect this vital profession and its role in justice, we need real action:

  1. Legislative Safeguards
    Courts and lawmakers must require certified human court reporters for official proceedings. Not as a luxury—as a standard.
  2. Investment in Training
    We need funding and outreach to support court reporting schools. The next generation must see this career as viable and valuable.
  3. Public Awareness Campaigns
    Judges, attorneys, and the public need to understand: this isn’t about resisting change. It’s about preserving what works—and protecting what matters.
  4. Professional Collaboration with Tech
    Let’s keep improving tools for reporters. Let AI assist—not replace—the professionals who carry legal responsibility for the record.

You Only Get One Shot at This

If we give up on stenographic court reporting, we won’t get it back. It will disappear quietly. The schools will shutter. The machines will go out of production. And when AI fails—as it inevitably will in complex, nuanced proceedings—there will be no one left to take over.

It’s a simple truth, one we all recognize in business, in justice, in life:

You get what you pay for.

So here’s the plea:

If you want us tomorrow—if you want accurate, human-made, legally certified transcripts—you need to stand with us today. Not after it’s gone. Not after a failed appeal. Not after a broken system.

Today.

DISCLOSURES

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions. All views expressed are based on publicly available information, direct experience, or opinion. Nothing on this site is presented as legal or professional advice.

***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):

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 “Save Steno Now, or Lose It Forever – Why Court Reporters Can’t Be Replaced by AI”

Leave a reply to Betsy J Ertel Cancel reply