The High Cost of Convenience – How Digital Court Reporting Risks Destroying the Profession It Claims to Modernize

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the age of tech optimism, it’s tempting to cheerlead every advancement as progress. But in the court reporting world, the headlong embrace of digital and AI technologies isn’t just modernization—it’s a dangerous gamble with due process, accuracy, and professional livelihoods.

A recent article from Hudson Court Reporting touts the benefits of AI-driven transcription, automated scheduling, and cloud-based storage. While the intentions may be well-meaning, the implications for the court reporting industry—and the justice system as a whole—are far more sobering.

1. Accuracy Isn’t Optional in Justice

At the heart of our legal system is a human record. A real-time verbatim transcript is not just a convenience; it is a constitutional safeguard. Court reporters are trained, licensed, and ethically bound to produce accurate records under pressure. AI and digital recorders, by contrast, have no training, no ethical obligations, and no capacity to ask for a clarification mid-sentence when speakers talk over each other.

According to the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), digital recording systems failed to capture full and accurate testimony in up to 14% of monitored proceedings. That’s not a margin of error—it’s a liability landmine. When AI misses a key word or a doctor’s diagnosis in a deposition, the fallout isn’t just clerical—it could result in a mistrial, an appeal, or millions lost in a malpractice suit.

2. The Myth of “Supplementing” Court Reporters

Hudson frames AI as merely “supporting” court reporters. But in reality, every dollar invested in AI transcription is a dollar divested from training, recruiting, and retaining live stenographers. Agencies claim to want the best of both worlds, but they’re building an infrastructure that quietly phases out the human experts in favor of cost-savings and convenience. Once AI is “good enough,” it won’t just be a supplement—it will become the default.

This is not speculative. We’re already seeing agencies undercut their certified professionals with subcontracted digital recordings and tech tools passed off as equivalent.

3. Devaluing Human Labor Destroys the Talent Pipeline

Court reporters are retiring faster than new ones are entering the field. Why? Because agencies no longer invest in human capital. They spend their marketing budgets hyping AI, not highlighting the expertise of stenographers. And when a student sees a profession being automated out of existence, they look elsewhere.

Agencies have a moral responsibility—and a business imperative—to protect the pipeline. The more they lean on AI, the fewer skilled professionals will enter the field. In five years, they won’t be replacing retirees with AI—they’ll be praying for a certified stenographer who’s still willing to take a job.

4. Real-Time Reporting Already Exists—It’s Called Stenography

One of the more misleading claims is that AI and tech tools are enabling “real-time transcription.” Certified stenographers have provided real-time feeds for decades. The difference? Steno real-time is trusted in trials, arbitrations, and appeals. AI real-time is a marketing buzzword that buckles under cross-talk, accents, emotion, sarcasm, and complex legal terminology.

What AI provides in speed, it sacrifices in meaning. Machines can’t discern intent. They don’t hear “object to the form” and know that’s a legal objection. They don’t mark exhibits. They don’t interrupt when a speaker’s microphone is off. A human does all that while writing 260 words per minute.

5. Clouds, Cameras, and Convenience Are Not the Core of Our Work

Cloud storage, automation, and video conferencing are helpful tools. But they are adjuncts to a human-led system—not replacements. We’ve already seen what happens when tech is mistaken for a silver bullet: errors multiply, oversight disappears, and accountability vanishes. A transcript created from an inaudible audio file recorded by a $40 USB mic is not the same as a certified legal record made by a trained professional.

Courts and attorneys don’t want excuses after the fact. They want accuracy in the moment. That requires the judgment, training, and reflexes of a live court reporter.

6. Ethical Concerns and Legal Risks

AI systems—especially open-source ones like Whisper—pose privacy and ethical hazards. Who owns the data? Who secures it? Who ensures it’s not scraped, stored, or sold? The legal field thrives on confidentiality. Offloading sensitive testimony to third-party software opens the door to breaches, subpoenas, and data misuse.

Even worse, if a flawed AI transcript causes a legal misstep—who’s liable? The agency? The software company? The reporter who didn’t vet the tech? You can’t sue an algorithm, but you can bet someone will try.

7. The Disappearing Human Connection

Perhaps most troubling is the shift away from the human relationships that have long defined court reporting. Agencies used to cultivate their reporters, match them with the right jobs, and take pride in quality control. Now, too many function as scheduling bots—disconnected from the professionals that make their services possible.

This detachment fuels the trend of undercutting rates, outsourcing work, and treating reporters as replaceable. It erodes loyalty, quality, and ultimately, reputation.

A Call to Agencies: Reconsider the Path Forward

Agencies tempted by tech’s promise need to ask a simple question: Is this sustainable? Will you still be in business when courts and clients realize that AI cannot meet the legal standard of accuracy and reliability? Will you have any reporters left when you finally realize humans are not interchangeable with software?

Technology should make court reporting better. But only when it uplifts, not replaces, the professionals who built this industry.

Conclusion: Progress Without Integrity is Regression

Hudson Court Reporting and others embracing digital shortcuts should tread carefully. There is a line between innovation and elimination. The court reporting industry doesn’t need reinvention—it needs reinvestment in the people who make the record.

Machines can’t swear in witnesses, ensure fairness, or preserve justice. That’s our job.

And we’re not going anywhere.

StenoImperium
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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.