Are Paralegals Being Automated Out of the Legal Workforce? A Critical Look at Lexitas’ New AI Tool

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, UncategorizedTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the latest wave of legaltech innovation, Lexitas has announced the launch of Deposition Insights+™, a platform that uses artificial intelligence to perform deep analysis of deposition transcripts and videos. On its face, the tool promises improved efficiency, reduced turnaround times, and stronger litigation outcomes. But beneath the marketing buzz lies a deeper question: Is this technology helping legal teams—or is it slowly replacing the people behind them?

As a court reporter who has worked alongside hundreds of paralegals and young associates, I see a very different narrative unfolding than the one Lexitas is promoting. According to their July 15, 2025 press release, the new platform automates many of the tasks traditionally handled by legal professionals: summarizing testimony, identifying contradictions, tracking exhibit references, and even evaluating witness demeanor. The company frames this as a solution to overworked legal teams, yet it’s hard to ignore the real consequence—the slow erosion of entry-level legal jobs and the de-skilling of essential litigation support roles.

Are Paralegals Really Overworked—Or Being Undermined?

One of the implicit premises behind Deposition Insights+ is that paralegals and young associates are drowning in tedious review tasks, and that AI is swooping in to rescue them. But let’s pause and examine that idea more closely.

Sure, litigation is document-heavy. Reviewing hundreds or thousands of pages of testimony is painstaking work. But it’s also foundational work—this is where new attorneys and paralegals cut their teeth, learn case nuance, and build the sharp analytical instincts required for litigation. Removing that layer of involvement not only shifts knowledge away from human hands, it fundamentally alters the skill pipeline within a law firm.

Paralegals are not begging to be replaced by software. And while some might enjoy time-saving tools, most recognize that automating core responsibilities today may jeopardize their positions tomorrow.

A Trojan Horse in the Litigation Department?

Lexitas boasts that it has already generated more than 100,000 AI-driven deposition summaries. That’s 100,000 jobs not done by paralegals or junior attorneys. Let that sink in.

And yet, many law firms are still contracting with Lexitas for court reporting and transcript services. It begs the question: Why would a law firm that values its own support staff continue to partner with a vendor actively replacing them?

This is more than just a technological update—this is a business model shift. By packaging AI as a value-added service, Lexitas positions itself not just as a service provider, but as a centralized legal analyst, offering tools that sidestep the need for in-house staff. For firms chasing profit margins and client satisfaction, the temptation is strong. But in the long run, they may find themselves disempowered, having outsourced too much of their legal brainpower.

The Slippery Slope of “Enhanced Efficiency”

Lexitas promotes its product with buzzwords like “agentic search,” “customized summaries,” and “behavioral video analysis.” These features sound futuristic, and to some, maybe even magical. But the reality is this: Every feature that replaces a human task replaces a human role.

Consider:

  • The AI assistant that “answers complex questions” across depositions? That’s what paralegals and junior associates are trained to do.
  • The contradiction spotting and key admissions extraction? Those are precisely the kinds of analytical skills lawyers develop over years.
  • The witness demeanor analysis by video? That’s subjective territory traditionally reserved for human intuition—and rightly so.

What happens when these insights are no longer being developed by people, but instead interpreted by algorithms? How will that affect legal reasoning, strategy, or even the integrity of a trial?

A Cautionary Tale for Legal Professionals

Legal support staff should be wary, not wooed, by tools like Deposition Insights+. This isn’t just about helping with workflow—this is about disintermediation, where middle-tier professionals are quietly being made obsolete.

The question isn’t whether AI will replace paralegals. It’s how fast, and whether law firms and legal professionals will realize what’s happening before it’s too late.

Conclusion: Choose Your Vendors Wisely

Legal professionals—especially paralegals, litigation support teams, and junior attorneys—must begin asking the hard questions:

  • Is this tool supporting my work or replacing it?
  • Is this agency aligned with my firm’s long-term staffing values?
  • What happens to my job if these tools become standard?

And perhaps most urgently: Why are we supporting vendors who are actively automating us out of relevance?

It’s time for the legal community to be more intentional about the tools and agencies they rely on. Because in the name of “efficiency,” we may be paving the way for a future without the very people who make justice work.

Steno Imperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

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):

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.

Leave a comment