Outsider Companies Are Knocking – Why Court Reporters Must Push Back and Protect the Profession

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inUncategorizedTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Over the past year, a growing number of emails, social media posts, and marketing campaigns have landed in court reporters’ inboxes. The message is always the same: “Join us. Work with us. We’re the future of legal reporting.”

Recently, one such email from a company called Prevail Legal circulated among reporters. Their pitch sounded familiar: they claim to be “reporter friendly,” they insist their AI-powered live transcript feature is only meant to assist, not replace, and they assure reporters they’re “essential to the legal process.”

But let’s pause here. If their AI transcript already produces a real-time rough draft, then what is left for reporters beyond a final polish? And if they require reporters to lug equipment, troubleshoot Zoom, and manage exhibits, what are we really being valued for—our skill, or as tech support for their platform?

This is not just about one company. It’s about a growing trend of outside firms and tech startups attempting to wedge their way into our market, using AI and clever language to exploit our labor while undermining our profession. Court reporters must see these tactics clearly and respond strategically.

The Playbook of Outsider Companies

Let’s break down the common themes in the pitches we’re seeing:

  1. Reassurance Without Guarantees
    They say: “AI is just a tool. Reporters are still essential.”
    Reality: If their business model provides free roughs and realtime to attorneys through AI, then the paid rough draft market is destroyed. Our value is reduced to the final transcript only.
  2. The Trojan Horse of “Technology Partnerships”
    They want us to handle Zoom log-ins, troubleshoot their software, and manage exhibits. That’s uncompensated tech labor on top of our actual work.
  3. The Illusion of Professional Respect
    They frame themselves as allies: “We need reporters. We respect your expertise.”
    But the long-term trajectory is clear: their profitability depends on minimizing human involvement. If they can push us into marginal roles while feeding AI with transcript and audio data, they will.
  4. Strategic Partnerships with Large Institutions
    Companies like Prevail have already partnered with organizations such as JAMS (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services). This is a direct attempt to normalize AI-driven reporting in mainstream legal proceedings.
  5. Silence on Data Usage
    A critical question remains unanswered: Are they using reporter transcripts and audio to train their engines? If so, we’re not just working for less—we’re training the very technology designed to replace us.

Why Reporters Should Be Concerned

This isn’t just about losing rough draft revenue. The ripple effects are enormous:

  • Loss of Realtime Premiums: AI delivers a “good enough” live transcript, so attorneys won’t order paid realtime.
  • Data Exploitation: Sensitive deposition and arbitration content could be fed into AI engines, raising serious privacy and security concerns.
  • Devaluation of Human Skill: Our decades of training and professional expertise are being reframed as “optional”—something to clean up AI’s mess.
  • Market Saturation of “AI Reporters”: If attorneys believe AI is “close enough,” they’ll push firms to adopt it broadly, regardless of quality or ethical concerns.

The Strategic Plan: How We Push Back

The good news: reporters hold more power than we think. Every deposition, every hearing, every arbitration still requires us—for now. If we stand together, we can stop these incursions before they become normalized. Here’s the roadmap:

1. 

Educate Attorneys and Clients Immediately

  • Don’t stay silent. When you encounter an AI-based agency, inform the attorneys on the record.
  • Explain that their sensitive information may be fed into a third-party AI engine with uncertain data protections.
  • Remind them that only a certified court reporter can produce an official, admissible transcript.

2. 

Say “No” and Mean It

  • Decline work for agencies whose business model undercuts roughs, realtime, or privacy.
  • Share experiences with fellow reporters. Our collective refusal sends a strong market signal.

3. 

Leverage Professional Associations

  • Work with state and national reporter associations to issue position statements condemning AI-driven outsourcing.
  • Encourage associations to lobby for legislation protecting stenographic reporting and prohibiting uncertified AI records in court.

4. 

Highlight Privacy and Security Risks

  • AI transcripts rely on cloud-based processing. That means confidential deposition content is vulnerable to breaches.
  • Frame this as not just a reporter issue, but a client risk issue. Attorneys care about privilege, confidentiality, and malpractice exposure.

5. 

Strengthen Client Relationships

  • Stay close to your law firms. Build trust. Attorneys are less likely to be swayed by flashy tech pitches when they have a reliable, skilled reporter they respect.
  • Position yourself as a guardian of the record—not just a service provider.

6. 

Promote Our Value Publicly

  • Use LinkedIn, Facebook groups, and professional forums to share accurate information.
  • Write blogs, post videos, and speak up about why stenographic court reporters remain the gold standard in accuracy, neutrality, and reliability.

7. 

Be Ready With Questions

If approached by one of these firms, ask direct questions such as:

  • Are transcripts or audio used to train your AI?
  • Are attorneys informed that their confidential proceedings are being processed by AI systems?
  • If AI provides roughs and realtime for free, how are reporters compensated for the loss of those services?

If they hesitate, dodge, or refuse to answer—there’s your answer.

8. 

Remember: Outsiders Need Us More Than We Need Them

These companies cannot function without certified reporters. Their marketing is a scramble to recruit us because their AI alone won’t hold up legally. That is our leverage. Use it.

A Call to Unity

Back in the early days of contracting, many reporters believed, “If we just say no, it will stop.” And they were right. The power of refusal is real.

The same applies here. If we accept AI-driven agencies and their “assisting tools,” we normalize them. If we decline, educate attorneys, and make our stance public, these companies lose traction.

Court reporters are the guardians of the record. We are not optional, and we are not tech troubleshooters for corporations looking to profit off our backs. Every time we say “no,” we protect our profession and the future of accurate, impartial, and confidential legal records.

Final Word

The push from companies like Prevail Legal isn’t just about technology—it’s about control of our market. They want our skills, our transcripts, and our clients, but they don’t want to pay for our full value.

This is the moment to draw the line. Educate. Refuse. Advocate.

If we fight together now, we preserve not just our livelihoods, but the integrity of the legal system itself. If we don’t, we risk becoming “essential” only as a cleanup crew for AI’s rough drafts—and that’s not a future worth accepting

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

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.

5 thoughts on “Outsider Companies Are Knocking – Why Court Reporters Must Push Back and Protect the Profession”

  1. Excellent content! I ascertain this refers to all court reporters no matter the capture method to save our industry from monetization.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Nancy was right… “just say ‘no.'” It’s similar to being asked, as a reporter, to sign a “contract” under the guise of establishing an independent contractor status. A W-9 accomplishes this, and a “contract” is unnecessary.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Hi Susan,

      Thanks so much for your note! These articles are part of the StenoImperium series, written to highlight issues affecting our profession. You’re welcome to share them on your website as long as you include attribution to StenoImperium as the source. A link back to the original article is appreciated when possible.

      I’m glad you’re finding the articles valuable, and thank you for helping spread the word!

      Like

      Reply

  4. In NJ, our standard title page says, “Transcript of the Stenographic Notes…” etc. I believe our cert page also says that this is an accurate transcription of our stenographic notes, or words to that effect. If I submit a transcript with these words on it, but the transcript was really produced by AI, I may be committing a crime! Think about this!

    Like

    Reply