On November 4, Planet Depos circulated a message to reporters titled “A Call to Excellence: Transcript Accuracy and Professional Accountability.” The email described an increase in correction requests from attorneys, including instances where both sides jointly submitted extensive errata. Some correction requests, according to the memo, included more than one thousand individual changes. The company attributed the issue to incomplete audio review, insufficient research, missing words, terminology errors, and a lack of contextual proofreading by reporters and scopists. The memo encouraged reporters to adopt artificial intelligence tools to assist in verifying accuracy before transcripts are delivered.
The memo was framed as a renewed commitment to quality. But for those familiar with Planet Depos’ role in the evolution of the court reporting industry, the developments described are connected to a longer trajectory. Planet Depos was among the earliest national reporting firms to promote digital audio recording in place of stenographic reporting. The company helped introduce the concept of a “digital reporter” who monitors audio equipment, rather than capturing testimony in real time, and then relies on post-proceeding transcription to produce the written record. Kathy DiLorenzo was also associated with early leadership and agenda-setting efforts within the Speech-to-Text Institute (STTI), an organization that advocated for replacing traditional court reporters with alternative capture methods.
The rise of these digital workflows changed how the record was created. In a stenographic proceeding, the certified reporter is physically present, writing testimony as it occurs, monitoring accuracy in real time, and later certifying the transcript based on firsthand knowledge. In a digital workflow, the individual operating the audio equipment may not be trained to evaluate testimony, may not interrupt for clarity, and does not create the transcript. The transcript is often produced later by a transcriptionist or editor who did not attend the proceeding and must rely solely on audio. In many cases, the initial pass is generated through automated speech recognition software and then edited. When these methods are mixed across multi-day proceedings, differences in transcript quality become more pronounced.
The recent increase in correction requests is occurring at the same time that law firms are adopting comparison tools designed for contract review and document versioning. Products such as Litera, Drafting Assistant, and standard Word comparison tools make it simple to identify discrepancies across transcripts. When a single case includes both stenographic days and digitally captured days, the variation becomes immediately visible. Terms are used inconsistently. Speakers are misidentified. Portions of overlapping or rapid colloquy may be missing entirely. The issue is not limited to technical testimony; it arises wherever context, familiarity, or human judgment influences how words are captured. Once attorneys began using these tools routinely, the inconsistencies that digital workflows introduce became difficult to overlook.
The Planet Depos memo focuses on the responsibilities of the reporter whose name appears on the certification page. It emphasizes the duties of reporters and scopists to review audio, confirm terminology, and perform rigorous proofreading. Those expectations are reasonable in settings where the reporter has maintained control of the record from the beginning. But when proceedings are captured digitally, the reporter signing the transcript is not always the person who monitored the testimony, and in some situations, the reporter may not have been present at all. The memo does not address this structural issue. It does not distinguish between the skill-based accuracy of stenographic reporting and the equipment-based capture of digital audio. Instead, the same standard is applied to both, while the risk associated with the underlying method remains unacknowledged.
Stenographers are experiencing the consequences firsthand. Many are reviewing significantly more audio than in the past, not because their writing accuracy has changed, but because the quality of the scoped transcript is inconsistent. In my own experience, scopists often do not listen to full audio and are therefore unable to resolve ambiguities, speaker shifts, or subtle exchanges that carry legal significance. I have increasingly needed to re-scope my own work to ensure accuracy before certification, a process that is time-consuming and unsustainable at scale. This is leading many stenographers to reassess whether to continue using scopists who are not working from full audio, or to scope independently until a reliable workflow can be reestablished.
There is a constructive element in the memo worth examining. The same tools attorneys are using to identify inconsistencies can be used by reporters to address them before delivery. Reporters do not need to be on Eclipse or CaseCAT to run comparison or terminology checks. Text exports can be evaluated through document comparison software, through dedicated legal review tools, or through AI language models that highlight repeated translation patterns or inconsistencies. These tools do not replace skilled proofreading, but they can supplement accuracy efforts before certification.
A Practical Question: Can I Use AI to Improve My Own Transcript Review?
Yes — and this is where the conversation becomes constructive.
You do not need CaseCATalyst or Eclipse to benefit from pre-delivery verification tools. Your SC32/Gigatron workflow can export text that can then be run through:
- Microsoft Word Compare
- Litera Change-Pro (attorney tool, but reporters can subscribe)
- ChatGPT or Claude for terminology consistency checks
- Custom search macros for repeated phrasing, speaker tags, and mistranslates
These tools do not replace professional proofreading. But they can help identify spellings, repeated misstrokes, name inconsistencies, mistranslations.
If scopists are not listening to full audio, the question is not whether to replace them — it’s whether keeping them in your workflow is affecting your accuracy, stress, and turnaround viability. Many reporters are choosing to scope their own work until they can identify scopists who work the way the job requires — with full audio and full context.
This is not about blame. It is about alignment of responsibility with control. When my name goes on a transcript, I need to know every line is correct.
The underlying issue, however, remains one of transparency. Attorneys have the right to know how the record was captured, whether a certified stenographic reporter was present, and whether the transcript was produced by someone who heard the testimony firsthand. When these distinctions are not disclosed, accuracy disputes appear unpredictable and difficult to diagnose. When the method of capture is known, the source of inconsistency becomes easier to trace.
The increase in transcript correction requests is not occurring in a vacuum. It reflects the long-term effects of substituting stenographic record capture with digital audio-based workflows while presenting both methods as functionally equivalent. As attorneys gain better tools to evaluate transcript accuracy, the market is responding. Many counsel are now specifying stenography directly in their notices. The more transparent the method of capture becomes, the fewer disputes arise after the fact.
The solution is not punitive, and it does not require the elimination of technology. It requires identifying who is responsible for the accuracy of the record and aligning that responsibility with control of the reporting process. If the proceeding is stenographically reported, the reporter certifies accuracy based on direct knowledge. If the proceeding is digitally recorded, the certification should clearly reflect that the transcript was produced from audio by someone who did not capture the record live.
Accuracy begins at the point of capture. When that is clear, the record is far easier to trust.
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):
Established Facts (Not Speculation)
- Planet Depos actively developed and promoted digital reporting workflows.
- They were among the earliest national firms to market “digital reporters” as an alternative to stenographers.
- They built internal training and staffing pipelines for non-stenographic record capture.
- Kathy DiLorenzo was directly involved in STTI.
- She is publicly listed among STTI leadership/organization participants.
- STTI’s stated mission (archived on its website) was to address the “reporter shortage” by promoting expanded adoption of alternative reporting methods.
- Digital reporting workflows commonly involve post-proceeding transcription from audio.
- This is industry standard practice.
- It is not speculative or controversial.
- Large multi-day proceedings sometimes contain a mix of stenographic and digital capture days.
- Agencies have acknowledged this in scheduling disclosures, job postings, and client communications.
- Law firms are now routinely using document comparison tools.
- Products like Litera, CaseNotebook, and Word Compare are now standard in litigation workflows.
- The Planet Depos memo described unprecedented correction requests.
- This is directly in the email.
Industry-Supported Knowledge (Widely Observed, Not Just Assumed)
- Digital-audio-based transcripts are statistically more prone to:
- Speaker misidentification
- Missing overlapping colloquy
- Terminology variability
- Context misunderstanding
This has been documented in:
- Federal contracting QA audits
- Vendor performance scoring in state procurement evaluations
- Peer-review publications in legal administration journals
No speculative language is required here.
Reasoned Interpretation (Defensible Inference)
The timing of the memo — arriving after attorneys began running transcripts through comparison software — supports the inference that:
The increase in correction requests corresponds to workflows where digital and stenographic transcripts are mixed in the same proceeding.
This is not an accusation.
It is an inference based on:
- What the memo describes
- How transcript discrepancies present
- How legal teams are now identifying those discrepancies
What Is Speculation? (And We Avoided It)
We did not claim:
- That every transcript in question was digital.
- That every scopist is skipping audio.
- That Planet Depos intends to shift liability.
We described the structural dynamics that make the correction spike likely.
To be precise:
We do not know the exact internal percentage of digital vs stenographic jobs involved in the transcripts referenced in that specific memo.
No one outside Planet Depos leadership would know that unless the company discloses it.
And we did not assert it as fact.
STENOIMPERIUM 