Why Digital Recording Endangers Justice in Texas

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, Judicial Ethics WatchTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a recent article titled “Preserving Access to Justice with Digital Reporting in Texas,” advocates for digital recording argue that non-stenographic methods are just as accurate and reliable as stenography. They claim that without digital reporting, Texas courts will collapse under delays, costs, and a so-called stenographer shortage.

This is a compelling narrative—but it’s also deeply misleading. At its core, the article conflates audio capture with verbatim reporting, invents statistics to prop up a false “shortage,” and downplays the constitutional risks of outsourcing the official record.

The Texas Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether digital recording should stand on equal footing with stenography. The stakes could not be higher: If digital replaces verbatim reporting, we risk undermining both the accuracy of the judicial record and the very foundation of due process.

A Record Isn’t Just “Captured”—It’s Created

The article suggests that digital reporters and voice writers are interchangeable, but that is simply untrue.

  • Voice writers are part of the stenographic tradition. They repeat every word into a stenomask in real time, acting as officers of the court who certify the record.
  • Digital recorders press “record” and send audio to transcribers who weren’t present at the proceeding. Those transcribers never swore in a witness, never clarified a muffled word, never saw who was speaking.

The result? A transcript that is hearsay—an out-of-court assertion presented as the truth of what was said. In a courtroom, hearsay is inadmissible. Why should it be acceptable as the official record?

Accountability Cannot Be Outsourced

Preserving Access to Justice paints digital reporting as “authorized under Texas law” and “meeting the highest standards of accuracy.” But who stands behind the record?

A stenographer signs their name and license number to every transcript. That certification means: I was present. I heard this testimony. I am accountable for its accuracy.

Digital reporting has no such safeguard. Once the audio is outsourced to multiple vendors—sometimes overseas—the chain of custody is broken. Who takes responsibility when the transcript is wrong? No one. That is not justice.

The Enrollment Myth

The article claims stenography is in decline, citing statistics like “a 74% drop in enrollment.” But no sources are provided, because those numbers are not accurate.

Yes, some traditional programs in Texas and California have closed. But online reporting schools are thriving, with some programs in California even running waitlists because demand is so high. Students are entering the field; the problem is distribution, not extinction.

By repeating unsourced statistics, the article creates the illusion of a crisis that justifies lowering standards. But the real crisis is the attempt to normalize hearsay in place of certified transcripts.

Accuracy Is More Than Audio

The amicus brief celebrated in the article insists digital transcripts are reliable. But anyone who has spent time in court knows better.

  • Lawyers interrupt each other.
  • Witnesses trail off or speak over one another.
  • Technical glitches erase entire sections of testimony.

A stenographer can stop the proceeding and get clarification. A microphone cannot. Once the audio is garbled or lost, it’s gone forever.

The Real Cost of Digital

The article argues that without digital reporting, cases will stall and costs will rise. But what about the hidden costs?

  • Mistrials when testimony is missing or inaudible.
  • Lost appeals because transcripts cannot be certified.
  • Higher bills when transcripts must be corrected or recreated.

Justice isn’t about speed or savings. It’s about certainty. And certainty requires a verbatim record.

Texas Should Lead, Not Lower

If the Texas Supreme Court accepts the argument put forward in Preserving Access to Justice with Digital Reporting in Texas, it will send a signal nationwide: that expediency matters more than accuracy. That would be a dangerous precedent.

Instead, Texas should lead by protecting the highest standard—stenographic reporting—and by investing in the next generation of professionals. With scholarships, outreach, and thriving online schools, the pipeline is already being rebuilt. The answer isn’t to abandon stenography but to strengthen it.

Conclusion

The article defending digital reporting asks whether the law should protect litigants or the people capturing the record. But that is a false choice. Protecting the role of stenographers is protecting litigants. Their testimony, their appeals, and their rights depend on a transcript that is verbatim, certified, and admissible.

Digital recording is not stenography. It is not verbatim. It is not accountable. And it is not justice.rd for court records. To do otherwise would erode the foundation of the legal system itself.

Related Articles & Sources

  1. “Preserving Access to Justice with Digital Reporting in Texas”
    An article advocating for non-stenographic methods—like digital and voice reporting—in court records, citing challenges and an amicus brief before the Texas Supreme Court. Coalition to Capture the Record
  2. Texas Senate Bill 1538 Analysis
    This bill would broaden the definition of “court reporter” to include digital reporters, authorize digital reporting, and empower the Supreme Court of Texas with new rulemaking authority. Texas Legislature Online+1
  3. SB 1538 Legislative Intent & Study Requirement
    The companion analysis outlines a directive for the Office of Court Administration to study cost, access, accuracy, and effectiveness of digital court reporting, with a report due by October 1, 2026. Texas Legislature Online
  4. Austin Court of Appeals–StoryCloud AI Case
    The appeals court remanded a dispute involving a digital reporting firm using AI to transcribe depositions—highlighting the judicial scrutiny of digital methods. Texas Civil Justice League
  5. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure & Non-Stenographic Recording
    Legal guidance showing that Texas rules allow non-stenographic deposition recording (e.g., audio/video) as long as proper notice is given, though with certain limitations. Texas Bar
  6. Reddit Discussion from Texas Court Reporters
    Practitioners discuss SB 1538 and digital reporting trends, raising concerns about outsourcing, professionalism, and accuracy. One comment notes: “Some of the big court reporting firms have illegally been sending digitals… citing the shortage.” Reddit

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.

Leave a comment

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