ASR in Court Reporting – Tool, Threat, or Transformation?

In the rapidly shifting landscape of court reporting, one debate keeps rising to the surface: Is there room for ASR in a profession built on human accountability? As court reporters face mounting pressure from digital alternatives, the idea of incorporating Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) — not just as a tool, but as a legitimate method of capturing the legal record — is sparking necessary and sometimes uncomfortable conversations.

Is ASR a threat? Could it be a helpful aid? Or, if deployed responsibly by a trained professional, could it become part of the solution to the court reporter shortage?

Let’s examine all sides.

---

⚖️ The Heart of the Debate: What Counts as a “Method”?

Stenography and voice writing are the two traditional, legally recognized methods of capturing a verbatim record. Each requires:

• Rigorous training
• Certification/licensure
• Ethical responsibility
• A human being present to oversee and correct in real time

ASR, on the other hand, is not a method — it’s a technology. It does not hold licensure. It does not have accountability. It does not understand context. And, most crucially, it does not sign and certify the record.

This foundational distinction is vital to the profession’s identity. If court reporters begin equating ASR with steno or voice writing, the lines between professional and machine-made transcripts blur — and the legal system risks confusing automation for expertise.

---

🚨 The Danger of ASR as a Standalone Method

Today, ASR is being sold and implemented in courts and depositions as a full-service solution, not merely a recording device. Companies tout it as faster, cheaper, and “good enough” — often with minimal or outsourced human correction afterward.

This is where many court reporters draw the line.

ASR is, by its very nature, probabilistic. It’s built to guess based on models, not understand intent or meaning. In court, where lives and liberty are on the line, even a 5% error rate can change outcomes. From misheard times like “five oh two” to misunderstood homophones or inaudible exchanges, context is everything — and machines don’t understand context.

Without a trained, licensed professional in Responsible Charge overseeing the process, these transcripts lack legal, ethical, and linguistic integrity. And yet, in jurisdictions where no licensure is required or budgets are tight, ASR is being sold as a complete replacement.

---

💬 A New Argument: What If a Stenographer Uses ASR?

Here’s where the conversation gets more interesting. A colleague recently posed a thought-provoking question:

“I use RSR (respeaker speech recognition) as my ‘machine.’ I sweat over my transcripts. I don’t use ASR as a full solution, but I’m treated as though I do. What if trained court reporters were allowed to use ASR as one of their tools?”

This raises a legitimate question: If ASR is used responsibly by a trained, certified stenographer — as part of their workflow, not in place of it — does that change the equation?

It just might.

---

✅ ASR As a Tool in a Human Workflow: Conditions for Responsible Use

Under very specific conditions, ASR could enhance the work of a stenographer, rather than undermine it. Here’s what that might look like:

1. The stenographer remains the Responsible Charge.
   The human reporter is present (or monitoring live), legally responsible, and ethically bound to accuracy. The transcript bears their name and certification.
2. ASR is used only as a supplementary tool.
   It might be used in scoping, auto-punctuation, or generating a rough draft — but never as the primary capture method. Steno or voice writing still drive the original record.
3. All editing and proofing are done or directly supervised by the certified reporter.
   No outsourcing to non-certified contractors. No AI-only editing pipelines.
4. It’s disclosed transparently.
   Attorneys and courts are told that AI assistance was used, not misled into thinking it’s a purely human-generated record.

When these standards are met, ASR becomes a modern tool in the court reporter’s arsenal — like a spellchecker or a transcription aid — not a substitute.

---

⚠️ The Slippery Slope: Risks Even With Responsible Use

But here’s the catch: even responsible use of ASR by stenos can lead to dangerous outcomes if not carefully defined and regulated.

• Legitimizing ASR may backfire.
  Courts and agencies might say, “If a steno can use ASR, why not just use ASR alone?” The nuance of human oversight is often lost on administrators looking to cut costs.
• It muddies the brand.
  The profession’s greatest strength is its claim to human accuracy and real-time correction. The more ASR enters the workflow, the less distinct that strength becomes in the eyes of clients.
• The certification problem.
  If no one knows whether a transcript was produced via steno, voice, or AI-assisted ASR, how can courts trust the integrity of the record?

---

If ASR were permitted only under the control of licensed stenographers, and its use by unlicensed individuals or digital reporters were prohibited, could this strategy effectively curb the growing trend of agencies replacing certified court reporters with digital and ASR-based alternatives?

✅ WHY THIS STRATEGY COULD WORK

1. It reframes ASR as a professional’s tool, not a substitute.

By tying ASR use to licensure, you redefine it not as a replacement for human professionals, but as a supplementary instrument used under licensed authority — just like steno machines or CAT software.

This:

• Delegitimizes digital-only solutions
• Creates a legal distinction between “authorized” and “unauthorized” ASR use
• Keeps human accountability front and center

2. It exposes the liability of unlicensed ASR use.

Once you draw that legal boundary, courts and agencies are forced to confront:

• Who is certifying the record?
• Who is responsible if it’s wrong?
• Who can testify to its accuracy?

Right now, ASR vendors are dodging liability because no one is asking those questions. Licensure laws would bring them into the light.

3. It gives state licensure boards and court systems a foothold to push back.

This strategy could empower court reporting boards and bar associations to say:

“ASR use is fine — if and only if it’s under a license. Otherwise, it’s the unauthorized practice of law.”

That flips the script from defensiveness to regulatory offense.

4. It creates a clear consumer protection argument.

It’s not about blocking technology — it’s about protecting due process and the accuracy of the legal record. When framed that way, it appeals to judges, lawyers, and even legislators.

---

🚫 CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

1. Most states don’t regulate digital reporting — yet.

You’d need:

• New legislation or regulation in each state
• Active enforcement mechanisms
• Licensing boards willing to take a stand

States like Florida, Texas, and Arizona have let the digital takeover happen with little resistance. That culture needs to shift.

2. Vendors will fight back hard.

Digital reporting agencies like Verbit, U.S. Legal, and Planet Depos make massive profits from unlicensed ASR workflows. They will:

• Lobby against licensing restrictions
• Claim “innovation is being stifled”
• Use access-to-justice and cost arguments

You’ll need solid PR, legislative alliances, and organized advocacy to counter them.

3. Courts are already over-reliant on digital.

If there aren’t enough licensed professionals to meet demand, courts will resist laws that limit ASR use. This is why growing the licensed workforce — including steno and voice — is key.

---

🧭 WHAT A MODEL POLICY COULD LOOK LIKE

Here’s what you might advocate:

“ASR shall only be used in the creation of legal transcripts when operated, reviewed, and certified by a licensed stenographic or voice writing court reporter. Any transcription or record generated through ASR or AI without licensed oversight shall be inadmissible in court, uncertifiable, and considered the unauthorized practice of court reporting.”

You can go further:

• Require ASR audits by state licensing boards
• Mandate that all transcripts be certified by a licensed reporter
• Define digital-only records as unofficial or non-binding

---

🔥 BOTTOM LINE

Yes — promoting ASR as a tool strictly limited to licensed professionals, and banning its standalone use by unlicensed digital reporters, could strike a powerful blow to the unchecked spread of machine-made transcripts.

It reframes the entire debate around ethics, professionalism, and due process — instead of just technology.

If you’d like, I can help you draft:

• A model state regulation or bill
• A white paper or advocacy brief
• A public campaign or association policy proposal

🧭 Where Do We Go From Here?

The court reporting community must take charge of this conversation before the tech companies define the narrative for us.

We should:

• Promote tech-literate stenos, who understand and responsibly use new tools — without surrendering ethical control.
• Reject any definition of ASR as a “method” of court reporting. It’s a tool, not a profession.
• Encourage licensing bodies to set clear rules around tech-assisted workflows, ensuring certified reporters remain at the helm.
• Educate the legal community about the differences between human-controlled and machine-controlled transcripts — and the dangers of automation without oversight.

---

🔥 Final Thought

ASR in the hands of a trained, licensed stenographer can be a tool for efficiency.
ASR in place of a trained stenographer is a tool for disaster.

Court reporters don’t have to fear technology — but we must not surrender to it. The profession’s survival depends not on rejecting tools outright, but on insisting that humans stay in charge.

The future isn’t just about how we capture words — it’s about who takes responsibility for them. And until a machine can swear an oath and take the stand, that responsibility must remain with us.

---

By: StenoImperium
Court Reporting is a profession — not a program.

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.

• 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.
• Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***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):