Why AI “Prediction” Can Never Replace Verbatim Court Reporting

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

In recent debates around the Texas Supreme Court’s pending case on digital reporting, supporters of non-stenographic methods argue that digital tools are simply “another way” of capturing the record. One critic even suggested that “digital softwares compete with the steno machine but do not replace the court reporter.”

That claim is fundamentally flawed. To understand why, we must separate myth from reality—and, most importantly, understand the stark difference between stenographic CAT software and AI-driven speech-to-text engines.

CAT Software – A Tool for the Human Reporter

Computer-Aided Transcription (CAT) is not artificial intelligence. It is a dictionary-based translation system designed to convert shorthand strokes entered by a stenographer into English text. Every word, phrase, and syllable comes from the professional reporter’s hands, not from machine inference.

When a stenographer certifies a transcript, it means:

  • They were physically present in the room.
  • They captured every spoken word in realtime.
  • They take legal responsibility for the record’s accuracy.

CAT software is no more a “replacement” for the court reporter than a scalpel is a replacement for a surgeon. It is a precision instrument operated by a skilled professional who is accountable for the result.

AI Speech-to-Text – Prediction, Not Precision

Digital reporting systems, by contrast, are built on artificial intelligence. They use large language models (LLMs) and statistical algorithms trained on massive datasets of past speech. Their function is not to capture speech, but to predict the next most likely word or phrase based on probability.

That difference matters:

  • Homophones: AI will choose between “there,” “their,” and “they’re” based on guesswork, not context heard by a trained reporter.
  • Overlapping voices: AI often collapses multiple speakers into one or drops words entirely.
  • Accents, dialects, and technical terms: A stenographer can ask for clarification. An algorithm cannot—it fills the gap with its best guess.

These predictions may be “good enough” for casual use, like voice assistants or dictation software. But in the courtroom, where a single word can decide liability, liberty, or guilt, guesses are not acceptable.

The Illusion of “Competing, Not Replacing”

Defenders of digital reporting often insist that digital software is not intended to “replace” court reporters. In reality, that is exactly how it is being marketed and deployed.

Agencies advertise digital reporting as a cheaper alternative when a stenographer is available. Proceedings are recorded by an operator, then transcribed later—often by multiple transcribers who were not present. The result is a transcript without a custodian, without certification, and without accountability.

That is not competition; it is displacement. And the ones who lose are not the reporters, but the litigants, whose rights hinge on the reliability of the record.

The Accountability Divide

This is the heart of the issue: responsibility.

  • A stenographer certifies: I was present. I transcribed this testimony faithfully. I stand behind every word.
  • A digital system produces a file: Here is what the algorithm thinks was said, reconstructed by people who weren’t in the room.

One is admissible, verifiable evidence. The other is hearsay.

Why Texas—and the Nation—Should Care

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision won’t just affect one state. If Texas equates AI-driven prediction with stenographic verbatim reporting, it risks setting a national precedent that undermines trust in the appellate process. Without a true, certified record, the right to appeal evaporates.

The solution is not to lower the standard of justice but to invest in the next generation of stenographers. Far from “dying,” reporting programs—especially online—are thriving, with some even maintaining waitlists. Students are entering the field. What’s missing is recognition and support, not interest.

Conclusion

CAT software and AI digital reporting are not cousins. They are fundamentally different species. CAT is a precision tool wielded by a human reporter, accountable for every syllable. AI is a probability engine that predicts what might have been said.

In legal proceedings, prediction is not protection. Justice depends on certainty. And certainty depends on stenographers.

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.

One thought on “Why AI “Prediction” Can Never Replace Verbatim Court Reporting”

  1. Seems everyone has forgotten that court reporters are now handling closed captioning on television and any venue they are needed. They work helping hearing impaired read their transcript off their computer at school, churches etc. the need for reporters is not just in depos or the court room.

    Sincerely,

    Jonnell Agnew, CSR #5437
    304 W Sierra Madre Blvd
    Sierra Madre, CA 91024

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment