Beyond the Hype – Redefining Court Reporting in the Age of AI

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

Artificial intelligence has moved from curiosity to commodity in just a few short years. From predictive text in our smartphones to generative models capable of drafting contracts, AI has become part of our daily lives. It is no longer a matter of “if” it will touch our work, but how.

For court reporters, the stakes are higher than in almost any other profession. We safeguard the words that form the backbone of justice. Every deposition, every hearing, every trial depends on the integrity of the record. And while AI promises efficiency and speed, it cannot provide judgment, accountability, or ethics.

This is not a story about resisting technology. It’s a story about reclaiming control—about shaping the role of AI in our profession before others define it for us.

The AI Hype Cycle – What’s Real, What’s Marketing

Every new technology goes through a cycle: initial hype, inflated promises, inevitable failures, and eventual normalization. AI in court reporting is no exception.

Right now, we’re in the hype stage. Vendors are promising “court reporting without reporters,” citing AI as the ultimate solution to labor shortages and rising costs. Legislators and court administrators—many of whom have never worked with a transcript—are tempted by the pitch of “modernization.”

But here’s the reality:

  • AI transcription is only as good as the audio quality. One cough, one accent, one sidebar conversation can derail accuracy.
  • Context matters. AI can’t tell the difference between “capital” as in capital gains and “capital” as in capital punishment. You can.
  • Accountability is absent. When an AI transcript is wrong, who signs the certification page? Who is responsible for the error?

Until those questions are answered, no algorithm can substitute for a trained, ethical reporter.

The New Threat – Policy and Procurement, Not Just Technology

The real danger today is not AI itself—it’s policy decisions made under the influence of misleading narratives. Court systems are being told: AI is the future, and human reporters are outdated.

This framing is not neutral—it’s strategic. By presenting automation as “good enough,” vendors position themselves to capture lucrative government contracts, even if it means lowering the standard of justice.

Examples are already emerging:

  • Procurement contracts where digital recording is bundled with AI transcription, marketed as a budget-friendly replacement.
  • Legislative proposals suggesting electronic recording should be the default, with court reporters optional.
  • Pilot programs that use unvetted AI to produce transcripts without professional oversight.

This is where the fight really lies: not in the lab where AI is being built, but in the meeting rooms where decisions about its adoption are being made.

From Guardians to Innovators – Shaping the Future Ourselves

Historically, reporters have been cast in a defensive role—protecting the profession from encroachment. But the next chapter requires us to go on the offensive, not just fighting bad policy but redefining the value proposition of court reporting in the AI era.

That means positioning ourselves not as the “last line of defense” against automation, but as the only professionals qualified to ethically integrate AI into the record-making process.

Imagine this future:

  • Reporters use AI-assisted tools to speed up editing, making turnaround times faster than any digital recorder could deliver.
  • Secure AI systems help reporters manage transcripts, exhibits, and case prep more efficiently than clerks or vendors.
  • Courts recognize that a human reporter armed with AI is both faster and more reliable than any standalone machine.

This is how we move the conversation forward—not by rejecting technology, but by proving that we’re the only ones who can use it responsibly.

Where AI Belongs in Court Reporting

AI has no place as a substitute for the human reporter. But it has enormous potential as a behind-the-scenes assistant. Here are the areas where its use is both ethical and powerful:

1. Smarter Case Preparation

  • Generate word lists from witness names, company filings, or public databases.
  • Identify likely technical terms for medical, engineering, or financial depositions.
  • Pull together background summaries on cases so you walk in prepared.

2. Faster Transcript Editing

  • Flag inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, or speaker tags.
  • Compare drafts against audio and highlight questionable spots for review.
  • Automate tables of contents, pagination, and indexing.

3. Streamlined Business Operations

  • Automate invoicing, payment reminders, and reconciliation.
  • Use scheduling AI to manage job calendars across multiple clients.
  • Deploy AI-powered search to retrieve past transcripts in seconds.

4. Enhanced Client Experience

  • Offer secure transcript repositories where clients can keyword search across all their cases.
  • Shorten turnaround with AI-assisted proofing and formatting.
  • Deliver polished, searchable exhibits faster than the competition.

5. Personal Efficiency

  • Dictate prep notes and have them instantly transcribed.
  • Draft client emails or cover letters in seconds.
  • Summarize complex legislation or court rules into digestible bullet points.

The golden rule: AI handles the mechanical, while you retain the judgment.

Ethical Guardrails – The Non-Negotiables

For AI to remain a tool and not a threat, strict boundaries must be maintained:

  1. Confidentiality — Never upload sensitive case material into a public AI tool. Use only platforms that guarantee encryption and data protection.
  2. Human Oversight — AI can suggest; only you can decide. Never certify a transcript without full review.
  3. Accountability — If your name is on the record, you are responsible for every word.
  4. Transparency — Be ready to explain how AI was used and what safeguards you applied.

Without these standards, AI becomes a liability. With them, it becomes an asset.

Why Unity Matters More Than Ever

AI doesn’t care if you’re a stenographer – whether you’re a verbatim steno machine writer, verbatim voice writer, or verbatim pen writer. Neither do legislators. To them, you’re all “verbatim court reporters.”

That’s why unity is critical. Internal debates over input method pale in comparison to the external fight we face. A fractured profession is an easy target; a united one is a force to be reckoned with.

By speaking with one voice, we can reframe the conversation:

  • We are not anti-technology.
  • We are pro-accuracy, pro-ethics, and pro-justice.
  • AI doesn’t replace us—it reinforces why we are essential.

The Call to Action – Owning the Narrative

The future of court reporting won’t be decided in coding labs—it will be decided in legislative chambers, procurement offices, and professional communities.

If we want to shape that future, we must:

  • Educate ourselves. Learn what AI can and cannot do so we can challenge false claims.
  • Educate others. Judges, attorneys, and policymakers need to hear directly from us why AI without oversight is dangerous.
  • Adopt wisely. Use AI tools to work faster, deliver better service, and prove that no vendor can compete with a human professional enhanced by technology.

The Future Is in Our Hands

The rise of AI is not the end of court reporting—it’s the next chapter. But only if we take ownership of the narrative.

If we allow others to frame AI as our replacement, we risk being written out of the story. If we step forward as the only professionals capable of using AI ethically and effectively, we not only protect the profession—we elevate it.

The future of court reporting is not about resisting technology. It’s about proving, every day, that accuracy, judgment, and accountability can only come from one place: a trained, ethical, human court reporter.

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