AI Summaries in Litigation – Efficiency or a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen?

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

The legal industry is being sold a vision of speed and efficiency—powered by artificial intelligence. Companies like Lexitas are rolling out tools like Deposition Insights+, boasting AI-driven transcript summaries, exhibit highlights, contradiction detectors, and even video analysis of witness demeanor. But while the marketing promises sound impressive, the lived reality inside courtrooms and law firms tells a very different story—one of missed details, misplaced trust, and rising liability.

The Case That Should Be a Warning to Everyone

I recently worked on a trial where the entire trajectory of a case was altered by a flawed AI summary.

During the deposition of a medical expert, the doctor testified—albeit in a fragmented, interrupted way—that the injured plaintiff would require future surgery. Anyone familiar with real-world depositions knows how chaotic they can be: objections flying, incomplete thoughts, attorneys talking over one another. In this case, the key medical testimony was not given in a clean, uninterrupted paragraph. But a human brain—a paralegal, associate, or even a seasoned court reporter—would have caught the implication, recognized the context, and flagged it appropriately.

The AI summary did not.

That summary, generated by the law firm and forwarded to the insurance company, missed the need for future surgery entirely. As a result, the insurer viewed the plaintiff’s settlement demand as inflated and refused to negotiate in good faith. The case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a multimillion-dollar verdict—well beyond the policy limits.

What was my trial about? Who pays the excess judgment?

The insurance company blamed the law firm for providing a faulty summary. The law firm blamed the insurance company for failing to negotiate a settlement. And what’s coming next? Plaintiff lawyers are beginning to realize the real party to sue might be the company who marketed and sold the AI summary product in the first place.

This is the next wave of litigation—and many in the industry aren’t ready.

AI Can’t Interpret What It Can’t Understand

In Lexitas’ July 15 press release, they call their new product a “revolutionary” way to accelerate litigation prep and “enhance outcomes.” But if the outcome is a misread case value, a missed opportunity to settle, and a seven-figure excess judgment, that’s not enhancement. That’s malpractice-adjacent.

AI struggles precisely where humans excel—in nuance, tone, and fragmented meaning. Especially in depositions, where testimony unfolds organically and is often derailed by objections, clarifications, or cross-talk, a machine’s ability to summarize is limited. It might catch the words, but not the weight of those words.

That kind of nuance isn’t programmable. It’s earned—through experience, intuition, and context.

Who’s Actually Liable When AI Gets It Wrong?

Lexitas, like other legaltech vendors, may try to disclaim liability for the use of their AI products. But as more law firms adopt tools like Deposition Insights+, they’re exposing themselves to new, untested forms of professional risk.

  • What happens when the AI summary omits a crucial statement that affects case value?
  • What’s the duty of a paralegal or associate to review and verify that summary?
  • Is the law firm liable? The court reporting agency? The AI vendor?

We’re entering a new frontier where the cost of AI errors isn’t measured in minutes saved—but in verdicts lost.

In fact, AI-related malpractice claims are already bubbling beneath the surface, and court reporting agencies may soon find themselves at the center of these lawsuits—especially if they sold the product, promoted it as reliable, or failed to clearly warn users of its limitations.

Legal Professionals: Don’t Trade Skill for Speed

Many paralegals and litigation associates are under pressure—deadlines, clients, discovery burdens. So when AI tools promise to take the heavy lifting off their plate, the pitch can be tempting.

But here’s the truth: You are being replaced, not assisted.

The very tasks that build your litigation intuition—summarizing testimony, tracking contradictions, identifying smoking-gun statements—are the ones being handed over to machines. And when those machines get it wrong, it’s your firm, your client, or your career on the line.

A Word to Court Reporting Agencies: Brace Yourselves

If you’re a court reporting agency jumping on the AI bandwagon, understand what you’re stepping into. You’re not just delivering a transcript anymore. You’re producing a quasi-legal analysis tool—and you may be liable for the consequences when it misfires.

It’s only a matter of time before the first plaintiff’s lawyer sues a court reporting firm for an AI-generated summary that contributed to a failed settlement and excess verdict. If you’re not prepared with disclaimers, usage agreements, and clear client warnings, you’re already behind.

Final Thought: The Cost of Convenience

This isn’t just a debate about technology—it’s a wake-up call for the legal industry. The tools we use matter. So do the jobs they replace, the details they miss, and the risks they create.

Legal professionals and court reporting agencies alike must stop blindly chasing automation and start asking harder questions:

  • Are we improving outcomes—or just shifting blame?
  • Are we protecting our clients—or our bottom line?
  • Are we building a stronger legal system—or eroding it?

Because if we don’t, the next lawsuit might have your name on it.

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.

3 thoughts on “AI Summaries in Litigation – Efficiency or a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen?”

  2. Pingback: Who Owns the Transcript? – STENOIMPERIUM

Leave a reply to stenoimperium Cancel reply