When AI Enters the Deposition Room – The Legal and Ethical Minefield of Unauthorized Recordings

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

In the evolving landscape of legal technology, court reporters are encountering a new and concerning trend: attorneys seeking to record depositions using third-party AI tools like Fireflies.ai. These tools boast the ability to not only record audio but also transcribe, summarize, and even analyze conversations in real time. While this may sound like a convenience for attorneys looking to streamline their workflow, it raises serious legal, ethical, and professional concerns for stenographers — the guardians of the official record.

A recent situation shared among professional reporters highlights the tension. A plaintiff’s attorney attempted to use Fireflies during a deposition, and when the reporter objected, the attorney threatened to call the judge. The reporter stood her ground, called her office, and received clear instructions: do not permit the recording. The attorney ultimately relented — but not without creating a hostile, high-pressure situation that left the reporter wondering, “What is the right thing to do when this happens again?”

This isn’t just an isolated incident. It’s a warning shot.

What is Fireflies.ai — and Why Are Attorneys Using It?

Fireflies.ai is marketed as an AI notetaker that joins meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), records them, and generates transcripts and summaries using automatic speech recognition (ASR). The pitch is simple: “Let AI take your notes so you can focus on the meeting.” While that may be fine for brainstorming sessions or internal business calls, depositions are a different story entirely.

Depositions are part of formal discovery governed by legal rules and procedures. Recording them — in any capacity — is not as simple as hitting a button. In fact, outside of explicitly authorized video depositions or dual stenographic/audio capture in some jurisdictions, unauthorized recording is, at best, frowned upon, and at worst, outright illegal or sanctionable.

Why It’s a Problem for Stenographers and the Legal Record

Court reporters are certified officers of the court, bound by ethical obligations, confidentiality standards, and the responsibility to produce a complete and accurate record. Introducing a third-party AI tool into that environment is not a harmless convenience — it’s an intrusion.

Here’s why:

  1. Confidentiality Concerns
    Fireflies and similar apps often route audio through third-party servers, including cloud-based storage providers. That opens up a Pandora’s box of confidentiality issues, especially in cases involving medical records (HIPAA), trade secrets, or sensitive personal matters. Reporters are trained to protect confidentiality. AI bots are not.
  2. Loss of Control Over the Record
    AI doesn’t understand context. It doesn’t recognize when a witness says something off the record or when attorneys stipulate something as inadmissible. It can’t capture tone, nuance, or legal significance. If attorneys begin using AI-generated transcripts as a substitute or supplement to the official record, the accuracy and integrity of that record are jeopardized.
  3. Unfair Competition
    Reporters are already under siege by budget-cutting and ASR-promoting institutions. When an attorney brings in an AI tool that can “transcribe” a proceeding in real time — for free or cheap — it undermines the profession and devalues the role of a human court reporter. It’s akin to hiring a professional photographer for a wedding, then asking your cousin to shoot it with their iPhone “just in case.”
  4. Legal Noncompliance
    Most jurisdictions require that only authorized personnel may record or transcribe depositions. If an attorney wants a video record, they must notice the deposition as such and secure the services of a licensed legal videographer. They don’t get to unilaterally decide to create a side recording just because it suits their workflow.

What Should a Reporter Do When It Happens?

If you’re a reporter and an attorney attempts to use a tool like Fireflies.ai (or any other AI notetaker), here’s a basic framework:

  1. Politely Object Immediately
    Explain that third-party recording is not authorized and may violate procedural rules and confidentiality protections. You are the official record, and any unauthorized recordings are not part of the official proceedings.
  2. Contact Your Agency or Office
    Don’t make a unilateral decision if you’re unsure. Get guidance from your office or the agency managing the deposition. In most cases, they’ll tell you to reject the request.
  3. Put it On the Record
    If an attorney insists or threatens escalation (e.g., calling the judge), make a clear record of the exchange. “Counsel for Plaintiff indicated an intent to record the proceeding using a third-party application. Reporter objected. Counsel stated he would contact the Court. Reporter contacted her office and was advised not to permit any unauthorized recording.”
  4. Know Your Rights and Local Rules
    Every jurisdiction is different, so it helps to be familiar with the rules of court, codes of civil procedure, and any guidance from your certifying body (e.g., NCRA, state licensing board). Many explicitly state that all recordings must be handled by the reporter or noticed videographer only.

What About Private Note-Taking?

Some may argue, “What’s the difference between Fireflies recording the call and me recording it for my own notes?” This is a valid question, but here’s the difference:

  • Note-taking is passive; recording is active replication of the proceeding.
  • Fireflies is not a private notebook; it’s a third-party AI transcription service that stores data in the cloud.
  • Consent matters. Even if local laws allow personal note-taking or recordings, everyone must consent, and it must be disclosed.

Saying “anyone can record without being noticed” is not an argument for permitting it — it’s a warning that covert behavior may already be happening. If anything, it underscores the need for heightened awareness and proactive policies.

What’s the Real Danger?

The real risk is not just that AI will misrepresent what was said. It’s that attorneys — insurance carriers, adjusters, law firms — may increasingly rely on these flawed AI-generated summaries for case evaluation, settlement negotiation, and even trial prep. When the AI misses a critical statement — like a doctor testifying a plaintiff needs future surgery — it can alter the course of litigation.

And when that happens, the finger won’t necessarily point at the law firm or the AI developer.

It may point at the court reporting agency that provided the record — or allowed the AI in the room in the first place.

Final Thoughts: Hold the Line

Stenographers are not just typists. We are certified professionals, neutral officers of the court, and protectors of due process. When attorneys bring in unauthorized AI tools, it’s not about making life easier — it’s about control, cost-cutting, and potentially cutting corners.

So the next time someone tries to sneak an AI notetaker into your deposition, remember this:

  • You are the official record.
  • You are within your rights to say no.
  • And you are not alone.

Hold the line. The integrity of the record — and the future of the profession — depends on it.

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.