Opinion: Texas Isn’t Confused About Digital Reporting — Only the Vendors Are

It takes a special kind of audacity to claim that a trial court enforcing basic evidentiary reliability standards is somehow a “self-inflicted wound” to the justice system. Yet that is precisely the argument advanced by Esquire Deposition Solutions, U.S. Legal Support, and Veritext — three national deposition corporations with a formidable commercial interest in expanding digital reporting — in their recent amicus brief to the Texas Supreme Court. Their message is simple: Trust us. We promise this time digital reporting is totally fine. Their brief reads less like a legal analysis and more like a carefully lacquered public-relations campaign designed to reframe a commercial business model as a matter of judicial necessity.

The problem is that Texas courts are not obligated to suspend their skepticism just because three billion-dollar companies insist they should.

Rebranding a Technology Gap as a Legal Right

The amici’s argument rests on a convenient oversimplification: that the “only significant difference” between stenographic and digital reporting is the recording device. In reality, this distinction is not merely technical — it is the core issue. A stenographic record is created by a licensed court reporter bound by statutory duties, ethical canons, and a mandatory certification process that exists for one reason: to protect the integrity of the legal record.

By contrast, digital recording is a method, not a profession. It is not regulated by any Texas licensure regime. AAERT certification — invoked repeatedly by amici as though it were a statutory credential — has no legal authority in Texas. The Texas Judicial Branch Certification Commission does not recognize AAERT certificates, does not regulate digital reporters, and does not discipline them when something goes wrong. That means the “professional accountability” amici trumpet is not accountability at all — it is branding.

It is telling that amici elevate the existence of an in-room human as though presence alone constitutes expertise. Texas requires expertise. The rules require reliability. Courts require a chain of trust that withstands challenge. This is precisely why the trial court excluded the transcript in the first place.

The False Binary – Stenographers or Nothing

In a move we have seen for years, amici invoke the rhetorical emergency brake: the “stenographer shortage.” They present digital reporting as the inevitable solution to a problem whose contours they themselves often exaggerate. While certain regions face recruiting challenges, Texas has not declared a reporting crisis, nor has the legislature replaced licensure requirements, nor has any Texas ethics body suggested that accuracy standards should be relaxed in the name of convenience.

The amici’s narrative implies that Texas courts must choose between unreliable transcripts and no transcripts at all — a framing contradicted by the reality that Texas continues to license, regulate, and train certified shorthand reporters statewide. If the corporate amici truly believed in market solutions, they might invest in training, scholarships, apprenticeships, or rural-coverage programs, instead of lobbying for deregulation disguised as modernization.

The Rules They Cite Undermine Their Own Argument

Amici lean heavily on Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 199.1(c) and 203.6(a), repeating them as though repetition might bestow new meaning. The rules are unambiguous: non-stenographic recordings may be made, and they may be used — unless the court finds good cause to require a certified transcript.

That is precisely what occurred.

Rule 203.6 exists because the drafters of the Texas rules understood that while recording methods may vary, the reliable written record ultimately belongs in the hands of a certified reporter. The rule’s built-in safeguard is not a “mere exception.” It is the mechanism by which courts protect the evidentiary integrity of the transcript. When amici characterize the trial court’s application of this provision as somehow aberrational, they are not interpreting the rule — they are objecting to it.

The Industry’s Favorite Straw Man – “Opponents Say AI Is Evil.”

Another tactic in the amici brief is to portray critics as hysterical technophobes shrieking about artificial intelligence. This is sleight of hand. The objections raised by attorneys, judges, and reporters nationwide have never been about technology itself. They are about the absence of regulation, the lack of verifiable speaker identification, the chain-of-custody vulnerabilities inherent in multichannel recordings, and the inability to cross-examine a digital recorder when the transcript is wrong.

Amici then stress, almost defensively, that they do not use generative AI to create transcripts. Yet nearly all national deposition corporations rely on ASR or post-processing tools at some stage of production, and even “decades-old” audio-to-text tools remain susceptible to the same problems that have plagued digital recording for 40 years: crosstalk, garbled audio, improper mic placement, and the simple reality that people do not speak in clean, machine-friendly sentences during litigation.

If digital reporting were as flawless as amici suggest, the market would not be awash in transcript errata, attorney complaints, certification challenges, missing pages, inaudible segments, and deposition do-overs.

Turning a Business Model Into a Legal Mandate

What ultimately animates the amici position is not doctrine, but economics. Digital reporting drastically lowers labor costs, increases throughput, and redirects profit from regulated professionals to corporate shareholders. By characterizing judicial scrutiny as an obstacle, amici are asking the Texas Supreme Court to bless their business model — one that expands corporate control over the record while diminishing the state’s regulatory authority.

Courts are not required to underwrite that shift.

Texas has the prerogative — and the responsibility — to demand that its evidentiary standards remain anchored in reliability, not marketing claims. If amici wish to transform digital recording into a regulated, licensable, auditable profession, they are free to petition the legislature. What they cannot do is shoehorn deregulation into Rule 199.1 by rebranding commercial convenience as “access to justice.”

The Real Self-Inflicted Wound

The amici brief warns that restricting digital reporting would harm access to justice. But the true danger lies in the opposite direction: allowing unregulated deposition capture methods to proliferate under the veneer of legitimacy manufactured by corporate repetition. Nothing erodes confidence in the justice system faster than an unreliable record — and no amount of marketing gloss can rehabilitate a transcript that cannot withstand evidentiary scrutiny.

Texas courts should not be pressured into diluting standards simply because three national corporations insist that their private workflows are “clearly lawful.” Lawfulness is determined by statute, rule, and judicial discretion — not by amicus op-eds masquerading as inevitability.

If the amici’s processes are as sound as they claim, they should welcome judicial examination. Their attempt to secure a blanket blessing from the Texas Supreme Court suggests they are far less confident than their public relations copy would lead the public to believe.

---

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

This article reflects my perspective and analysis as a court reporter and eyewitness. It is not legal advice, nor is it intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney.

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):