The Rise of the AI Impostors – How Fake Court Reporters Are Flooding the Legal System

October 2025

A year ago, legal professionals were just beginning to notice the quiet infiltration of AI notetakers and digital “reporters” into deposition rooms. Today, it’s a full-blown epidemic.
Across the country, videographers are doing double takes when a real stenographer walks in with a machine. “Wow,” they say, “we haven’t seen one of those in months.”

The substitution of certified stenographic reporters with unlicensed digital operators—and even AI “assistants” masquerading as neutral officers of the court—has accelerated at an alarming rate. What was once marketed as a “cost-saving innovation” has become one of the greatest threats to record integrity and due process our system has ever faced.

---

The Exponential Growth of a Dangerous Shortcut

In 2024, AI notetakers were mostly limited to tech startups and casual internal meetings. But as agencies scrambled to meet demand amid a perceived “stenographer shortage,” they began contracting with digital vendors and off-the-shelf AI transcription tools.
Today, those apps have evolved—and multiplied.

Some operate under friendly names like “Otter,” “Scribe,” or “Meeting Companion.” Others are embedded invisibly in Zoom or Teams calls under aliases such as User_1’s Assistant or Realtime Notes Bot. The deception is intentional: most attorneys don’t realize that when they see an unfamiliar participant listed in the deposition, it’s not a human at all—it’s a data-harvesting algorithm.

This unregulated trend has outpaced policy and ethics oversight. AI notetakers are being used in depositions, arbitrations, and mediations without disclosure, without consent, and without any guarantee that the data is secure—or even accurate.

---

“Who Are You?” The New Reality in the Deposition Room

Veteran videographers describe the shift vividly.

“When a real machine writer shows up, everyone’s surprised,” one videographer in Los Angeles said. “Half the time I’m the only one who realizes the ‘reporter’ is just pressing record on an iPad.”

Many digital “reporters” don’t identify themselves clearly, and some even wear professional-looking name tags with “Certified” in fine print referring not to a court reporting license, but to a corporate “training course.” Attorneys assume the record is being handled by a licensed officer, when in reality, their testimony is being recorded by someone with no certification, no oath of impartiality, and no control over where the audio or data will end up.

---

How to Recognize the Fakes

The simplest way to spot a non-stenographic imposter is to look—and listen.

1. No Steno Machine in Sight
   A true stenographer writes on a specialized machine with 22 keys, connected to a laptop running CAT (computer-aided transcription) software. A digital recorder uses an iPad, laptop, or multiple microphones—no steno machine, no realtime feed.
2. No Realtime Display
   Stenographers can provide an instantaneous text feed of testimony. If the “reporter” says they can’t do that, you’re not with a licensed professional.
3. Multiple Microphones or USB Interfaces
   Watch for USB audio boxes, handheld recorders, or lapel mics spread across the table—those are hallmarks of digital recording, not stenography.
4. No CSR or RPR Number
   Certified reporters always carry a license or certification ID and will gladly provide it. A digital operator may claim “company certification” or say “the transcript is done by AI later.”
5. Unfamiliar Terminology
   If they refer to themselves as a “technician,” “recorder,” or “digital notetaker,” that’s your cue: this isn’t a court reporter, it’s an unregulated recorder.

---

The Hidden Dangers – What Lawyers Need to Know

1. Consent and Compliance Nightmares

Wiretap statutes differ by state. California, for example, is a two-party consent jurisdiction. When a third-party AI or digital operator records without explicit, informed consent from all participants, it’s a potential felony violation. Yet few agencies disclose that they are using such systems, and most participants never consent.

2. Data Leaks and Privacy Breaches

AI tools store audio and transcripts on remote servers—often outside the U.S.—where they may be used to “train” future models. That means your confidential client testimony, trade secrets, and personal medical data could be analyzed, mined, or even sold by a third-party vendor. Once uploaded, those words are no longer under your control.

3. Loss of Attorney-Client Privilege

Courts have held that privilege can be waived when confidential communications are shared with a third party. When an AI service records and stores that conversation, the “third party” is a machine owned by someone else—and you’ve just invited it into your privileged room.

4. Accuracy and Bias

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) still struggles with accents, crosstalk, and complex legal phrasing. It doesn’t distinguish between “affirmative” and “uh-huh,” nor does it know when someone is speaking off the record. AI also introduces bias—training data skews accuracy toward dominant dialects, meaning minority speakers are misquoted more often.

5. Security and Liability

When a data breach occurs—and it will—who’s responsible? The unlicensed recorder? The agency that subcontracted them? Or the law firm that allowed the AI to join the deposition? Under ABA Formal Opinion 512, lawyers are ultimately responsible for safeguarding client information, even when third-party vendors are used.

---

Real-World Consequences – When AI Gets It Wrong

Earlier this year, a corporate deposition in Texas went viral after an AI transcript quoted an executive saying “Yes, we inflated the numbers,” when he had actually said, “No, we never inflated the numbers.” The correction came days later, after the “digital reporter” uploaded the recording to an offshore transcription vendor—and the damage was done. The transcript had already been circulated internally, triggering a compliance investigation.

In another case, an off-the-record sidebar was captured and transcribed by an AI notetaker running in the background of a Zoom deposition. That transcript—unbeknownst to counsel—was automatically emailed to all participants, including opposing counsel. The result: a mistrial motion and sanctions hearing.

---

The Ethics of Silence

Even when lawyers sense something’s off, many hesitate to object. Agencies assure them that “digital is approved by the courts,” but in most jurisdictions, that’s simply false.
California, for instance, explicitly prohibits electronic recording in civil proceedings except under narrow circumstances. Yet hundreds of depositions each week are recorded by unlicensed operators in direct violation of state law.

The deeper ethical concern is one of disclosure. If you don’t know who is recording or where your client’s voice is stored, you can’t meet your duty of competence or confidentiality. Convenience is not a defense.

---

What You Can Do – Practical Safeguards for Attorneys and Firms

1. Ask Who the Reporter Is—by Name and License Number.
   Request their CSR or RPR number before the deposition begins. If they can’t provide one, object on the record.
2. Prohibit Third-Party Apps or “Assistants.”
   Before proceeding on Zoom or Teams, verify that no AI bots or notetakers are present. Disable “meeting companion” integrations in your settings.
3. Insist on a Certified Court Reporter.
   Licensed stenographers are trained officers of the court bound by oath, ethics, and confidentiality statutes. They are responsible for the record—not an algorithm.
4. Update Your Engagement Letters.
   Include language prohibiting unlicensed recording and requiring disclosure of any subcontracted transcription vendors.
5. Educate Your Team.
   Many paralegals and associates assume all “reporters” are the same. Hold an internal CLE session to teach them the difference between stenographic, voice, and digital reporting.

---

Why the Real Ones Still Matter

A licensed court reporter isn’t just a typist—they are the last human safeguard between truth and distortion.
They understand off-the-record protocols, detect when a witness is misheard, and protect the sanctity of the record. They don’t upload your client’s deposition to a cloud server or let an algorithm learn from it. They are trained to maintain impartiality, verify accuracy, and certify the transcript as a true and correct record of proceedings.

When videographers say they “haven’t seen a real stenographer in a while,” that should alarm us all. It means the justice system is quietly surrendering its memory to machines that cannot swear an oath, cannot protect a record, and cannot be held accountable when it fails.

---

The Cost of Complacency

AI notetakers are no longer novelty gadgets—they’re uninvited participants in our most confidential legal proceedings. Their presence erodes privacy, jeopardizes privilege, and introduces risks that no informed attorney should accept.

The solution is simple: demand certified professionals.
If the deposition truly matters—if the testimony, your client’s reputation, or the outcome of the case depends on an accurate record—then convenience cannot come before credibility.

Because once we let the machines take over the record, there may be no one left who can say what really happened.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

Editor’s Note: This article is based on public records, regulatory filings, and California statutes. The author’s commentary represents opinion on matters of public concern. No allegations of wrongdoing are made beyond the facts cited.

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):