When the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) met on November 15, 2024, one item sparked more public comment and concern than almost anything else on the agenda: AI-generated deposition summaries.
Board staff stated that under CCR Title 16, Division 24, Article 8, Section 2474, court reporters are prohibited from producing or assisting in the production of deposition summaries—but because the regulation defines a “deposition summary” as information dictated by an attorney and reported or transcribed by the court reporter, AI summaries do not currently fit the definition.
In short: right now, AI summaries are not considered a violation.
But that interpretation misses the point, and it leaves both reporters and consumers vulnerable to unfair practices, privacy risks, and the erosion of the official record. The issue isn’t whether the words “AI summary” appear in the Code. The issue is whether agencies are unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of reporters, and whether the integrity of the record is being compromised.
What CCR 2474 Actually Says
The exact language of CCR 2474 is clear on two points:
- It defines a deposition summary as information dictated by an attorney and reported/transcribed by a reporter after the conclusion of a deposition.
- It prohibits a licensed reporter from transcribing or assisting in the preparation of such a summary.
The rule was written long before AI summarization existed. Its purpose was to keep reporters out of the business of interpreting testimony. Reporters are neutral officers of the court, tasked with creating the verbatim record—not condensing, analyzing, or commenting on what was said.
By focusing narrowly on the “dictated by an attorney” clause, the CRB staff has essentially carved out an unintended loophole. Agencies now argue that AI summaries are fair game, since they aren’t literally dictated by an attorney.
Why AI Summaries Are Dangerous
- Bias and Interpretation
Summarizing is never neutral. Whether done by a human or an algorithm, it requires judgment about what is “important” and what is not. AI models are trained on massive datasets, shaped by prompts, and influenced by the biases of their creators. To call these summaries “objective” is misleading at best. - Undermining the Official Record
The certified transcript is the only official record of proceedings. AI summaries, especially if customized to client requests, can give the false impression of being authoritative. When lawyers rely on summaries instead of the transcript, errors slip through. One real-world case showed that an AI summary missed testimony about a plaintiff’s need for future surgery, leading the defense to undervalue the claim and suffer a large excess verdict. - Privacy and Data Security
Most AI platforms are cloud-based and retain data to improve their models. Feeding deposition transcripts into such systems risks exposing personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or privileged communications. Agencies that upload transcripts into third-party platforms may be creating serious liability risks—for themselves and for the reporters whose transcripts they used. - Market Distortion
Agencies are using AI summaries as a “value-added” incentive to pull clients from competitors. Reporters like those who testified at the November 2024 CRB meeting are already losing work for refusing to provide summaries they believe are unethical. This tilts the playing field in favor of large, attorney-owned firms with proprietary AI tools.
The Unjust Enrichment Problem
For decades, reporters have charged separately for derivative products: condensed transcripts, word indexes, realtime feeds, rough drafts. Each carries its own value and commands an additional fee because it requires extra work or provides special utility. These products exist only because of the reporter’s transcript.
When agencies resell derivative products without compensating the reporter, this isn’t just “double-dipping.” It’s unjust enrichment. They profit directly from the reporter’s labor while excluding the reporter from the revenue chain.
AI summaries are simply the newest derivative product. Marketed as “efficiency” or “value-add,” they are in truth value-extracted: the intellectual and professional work of the reporter siphoned into an algorithm, converted into a commercial product, and sold by the agency. The enrichment flows to the agency. The exclusion falls on the reporter.
What Other States Are Saying
This concern is not unique to California. Arizona’s code, for example, explicitly prohibits deposition summaries:
ACJA 7-206(J)(1)(k): “A certified reporter, registered reporting firm, or their affiliates shall not provide to any individual or entity additional advocacy or litigation support services, including but not limited to claim investigation assistance, trial preparation assistance, and deposition summaries.”
California’s regulation is narrower. But the policy rationale is identical: reporters must not cross into advocacy or interpretation. AI doesn’t change that line; it only makes it easier for agencies to cross it while claiming they haven’t.
The Risk to Reporters
One of the most troubling aspects of this debate is the risk to unwitting reporters.
Imagine a reporter covers a deposition for an agency. Unknown to them, the agency uploads the transcript into ChatGPT, SmartDepo, or a proprietary tool to generate a summary. That summary is sold to the client. The attorney believes it came with the transcript.
Who is liable if that summary is wrong? Who is accountable if confidential information leaks? And could the reporter be accused of “assisting” in the preparation of a deposition summary, even if all they did was deliver a transcript that the agency repurposed?
These are not theoretical risks—they are happening right now.
Contractual Safeguards
Reporters cannot wait for regulators to catch up. They should be protecting themselves today with independent contractor agreements that explicitly forbid agencies from using their transcripts to generate AI summaries or other derivative products without consent and compensation.
Suggested clauses:
- No AI Use Without Consent: Reporter’s transcripts shall not be used, in whole or in part, to generate or facilitate the creation of AI-generated summaries, digests, abstracts, or similar derivative works without the express written consent of the Reporter.
- Revenue Participation: If the Agency sells derivative products (including condensed transcripts, word indexes, concordances, realtime feeds, rough drafts, or AI-generated outputs) based on Reporter’s transcript, Reporter shall receive compensation consistent with statutory transcript fee schedules.
- Data Protection: Agency shall not upload Reporter’s transcripts into third-party AI platforms or cloud-based software without Reporter’s prior written authorization.
What the CRB Must Do
The CRB cannot allow a loophole to swallow the purpose of CCR 2474. It should:
- Clarify the Definition of “Assist”
Make clear that pushing a button, enabling software, or allowing transcripts to be uploaded into AI tools qualifies as “assisting” in the production of a summary. - Prohibit AI Summaries by Agencies
Just as reporters are prohibited from producing summaries, agencies should also be explicitly prohibited. Otherwise, the workarounds will multiply. - Require Disclosure
If summaries are offered, attorneys and parties must be notified that they are not part of the official record, may contain bias, and should not be relied upon as substitutes for the transcript. - Protect Reporter Liability
Rules must clarify that reporters are not responsible for unauthorized AI uses of their transcripts by agencies.
Safeguarding the Record Moving Forward
The debate over AI summaries is not just about technology. It is about power, ownership, and the integrity of the record. Agencies are already monetizing AI summaries, often without reporter consent, while regulators hesitate over definitions. Reporters risk losing clients, losing revenue, and even losing their licenses for practices they did not authorize.
The CRB has a duty to act. Reporters have a duty to protect themselves with contracts. Attorneys have a duty to demand clarity and transparency.
The transcript is the official record. It must remain neutral, complete, and inviolate. AI summaries are not neutral. They are not complete. And they are not the role of a court reporter.
here’s a sample Independent Contractor Agreement tailored for court reporters working with agencies. It includes protections against AI misuse, derivative product exploitation, and unfair compensation practices. This is a template, not legal advice — reporters should review with an attorney before adopting.
Independent Contractor Agreement
(Court Reporter – Agency)
This Independent Contractor Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of [Date], by and between:
Court Reporter: [Full Legal Name], CSR No. [Number], with an address at [Address] (“Reporter”)
and
Agency: [Agency Name], with an address at [Address] (“Agency”).
Reporter and Agency are sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
1. Engagement of Services
1.1 Agency engages Reporter to provide court reporting services (“Services”) as an independent contractor, not as an employee.
1.2 Reporter shall maintain full professional independence and shall not be considered an employee of Agency.
2. Ownership and Use of Transcripts
2. Ownership and Use of Materials
2.1 Reporter’s Notes. Reporter retains sole ownership of all stenographic notes created in connection with a proceeding for the full statutory retention period required by law. Notes shall not be transferred, sold, or otherwise disclosed except as required by statute, subpoena, or court order.
2.2 Reporter’s Audio Backup. Reporter retains sole and permanent ownership of any audio backup created in connection with a proceeding. Audio backup is a reporter’s personal work aid and shall never be turned over, copied, uploaded, or disclosed to Agency, attorneys, or third parties under any circumstances.
2.3 Transcripts. Once certified and delivered to the ordering party, the transcript constitutes the official record of proceedings. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to transfer Reporter’s ownership of notes or audio backup to Agency.
2.4 Agency Use of Transcripts. Agency shall not reproduce, alter, or use Reporter’s certified transcripts for the creation, marketing, or sale of derivative products—including but not limited to condensed transcripts, word indexes, concordances, rough drafts, or AI-generated summaries—without Reporter’s express written authorization and fair compensation. Nothing in this provision restricts the lawful delivery of certified transcripts or copies to parties entitled to receive them under statute.
3. Prohibition on AI Summaries and Derivative Products
3.1 Agency shall not, without Reporter’s prior written consent:
- Upload Reporter’s transcripts, notes, or audio into any artificial intelligence (AI) platform, machine learning tool, or cloud-based software.
- Generate AI summaries, digests, abstracts, concordances, indexes, condensed transcripts, or similar derivative works.
- Resell or distribute such derivative products without Reporter’s knowledge and participation.
3.2 Any violation of this clause constitutes a material breach of this Agreement.
4. Compensation and Revenue Participation
4.1 Reporter shall be paid according to the statutory page rates and copy order rules of the jurisdiction in which the Services are performed.
4.2 If Agency sells or provides derivative products based on Reporter’s transcript (including but not limited to condensed transcripts, word indexes, concordances, realtime streaming feeds, rough drafts, or AI-generated outputs), Reporter shall receive additional compensation consistent with statutory transcript fee schedules or mutually agreed-upon rates.
4.3 Payment to Reporter shall be made within thirty (30) days of Agency’s receipt of payment from the ordering party.
5. Confidentiality and Data Protection
5.1 Agency shall safeguard all materials created by Reporter and shall not disclose or use such materials except for legitimate transcript production and delivery.
5.2 Agency shall be liable for any data breaches, privacy violations, or misuse of Reporter’s materials resulting from Agency’s handling, storage, or unauthorized use.
6. Independent Contractor Relationship
6.1 Reporter is an independent contractor and shall be responsible for their own equipment, supplies, taxes, insurance, and professional licensure.
6.2 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment, partnership, or joint venture relationship.
7. Indemnification
7.1 Agency agrees to indemnify and hold Reporter harmless from any claims, liabilities, damages, or expenses arising from Agency’s unauthorized use of Reporter’s transcripts, including AI or derivative uses.
7.2 Reporter agrees to indemnify Agency for claims arising solely from Reporter’s negligence or willful misconduct.
8. Term and Termination
8.1 This Agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated by either Party with thirty (30) days’ written notice.
8.2 Any work in progress at the time of termination shall be completed and compensated under this Agreement.
9. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California (or the jurisdiction in which Services are provided).
10. Entire Agreement
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the Parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements. No amendment shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both Parties.
Court Reporter:
Signature: ________________________
Name: __________________________
Date: ___________________________
Agency:
Signature: ________________________
Name: __________________________
Title: ___________________________
Date: ___________________________
👉 This is a baseline template. Reporters can strengthen it by attaching a Rate Sheet as an Exhibit and adding clauses about copy orders, rough drafts, realtime fees, travel reimbursement, etc.
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):
STENOIMPERIUM 