When an AI “Note-Taker” Shows Up to a Legal Proceeding

Artificial intelligence tools have become commonplace in everyday business. Calendar schedulers, meeting summaries, automated minutes, and transcription bots now appear routinely in corporate video calls, internal strategy sessions, and informal negotiations. Their growing presence has conditioned many legal professionals to view them as benign conveniences rather than as systems that fundamentally alter how information is captured, stored, and distributed.

That assumption becomes dangerous when those same tools are introduced—sometimes casually, sometimes insistently—into formal legal proceedings.

Court proceedings, depositions, hearings, and sworn testimony are not business meetings. They are regulated events governed by rules of evidence, confidentiality obligations, and chain-of-custody requirements. When an AI “note-taker” attempts to join a virtual legal proceeding, the issue is not one of preference or technological comfort. It is one of record integrity, data security, and legal risk.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that these tools often appear without explanation. A bot joins the virtual room bearing a neutral name. A paralegal may have added it automatically. Counsel may insist it is “just for notes.” In many cases, no one present can clearly articulate where the data will go, who will control it, or how it will be used after the proceeding ends.

That uncertainty is precisely the problem.

---

Why AI Note-Takers Are Different in Legal Proceedings

Unlike certified court reporters or authorized videographers, AI note-taking tools are not officers of the record. They are software services, typically operated by third-party vendors, that capture audio and video and transmit that data to remote servers for processing. In many cases, those servers are outside the control of the court, the parties, or even the country in which the proceeding takes place.

Once testimony leaves the secure environment of the proceeding, control is lost. The data may be stored indefinitely. It may be reviewed by human contractors. It may be used to train future models. It may be subject to breaches, subpoenas, or foreign jurisdictional access. Even when vendors promise confidentiality, the legal enforceability of those assurances is often unclear.

This creates immediate concerns for privilege, confidentiality, and admissibility. It also raises downstream risks that may not surface until months or years later, when a party challenges the integrity of the record or disputes the accuracy of what was captured.

In short, AI note-takers introduce an unregulated parallel record—one that exists outside the procedural safeguards designed to protect all participants.

---

The Role of the Officer of the Record

Certified court reporters occupy a unique role in legal proceedings. They are neutral officers of the record, bound by ethical standards, licensure requirements, and professional accountability. Their work product is subject to established rules regarding custody, certification, correction, and authentication.

When an AI tool appears in a proceeding, it is the court reporter—not the software vendor, not the attorney, and not the platform—who is best positioned to recognize the risk and respond appropriately.

That response does not need to be confrontational.

In many cases, the introduction of an AI note-taker is the result of misunderstanding rather than bad faith. Legal professionals who routinely use such tools in internal meetings may not appreciate how differently they are treated in formal proceedings. A calm, professional explanation can often resolve the issue without escalation.

---

Educate First, Not Argue

When a participant asks to admit an AI note-taking tool into a legal proceeding, the most effective initial response is educational. Framing the issue as one of security and protection—not obstruction—sets the proper tone.

A clear explanation might include the following points:

• AI note-taking tools typically transmit audio and video to third-party servers for processing.
• Once transmitted, the data may be stored, analyzed, or reused in ways outside the control of the parties.
• This transmission can compromise confidentiality, privilege, and chain of custody.
• The presence of an unauthorized recording system can raise questions about admissibility and record integrity later.
• For these reasons, many legal proceedings restrict or prohibit such tools.

This approach reinforces the court reporter’s role as a neutral professional safeguarding the record, rather than as an obstacle to efficiency. In most instances, that explanation is sufficient. The tool is removed, and the proceeding continues without incident.

---

When Education Is Not Enough

Occasionally, an attorney may insist on admitting the AI tool despite the risks. At that point, the issue is no longer educational—it is procedural.

In such situations, it is critical that responsibility and liability be clearly addressed on the record. If an AI note-taker is permitted to remain, all parties should acknowledge that:

• The tool is not part of the official record.
• The court reporter and reporting service bear no responsibility for the data captured by the tool.
• The testimony may be transmitted to and stored on third-party platforms outside the control of the proceeding.
• Any output generated by the tool is unofficial and cannot substitute for the certified record.

Placing these acknowledgments on the record serves two purposes. First, it ensures informed consent by all parties. Second, it protects the court reporter from being associated with, or held responsible for, data practices beyond their control.

Such stipulations should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. The goal is not normalization of parallel recording systems, but clarity and protection when their use cannot be avoided.

---

Why This Matters Beyond the Moment

The introduction of AI note-taking tools into legal proceedings is not a hypothetical future concern. It is happening now, often quietly and without full consideration of the consequences.

If left unchecked, these tools risk creating fragmented records, inconsistent transcripts, and disputes over “what was really said.” They blur the line between official and unofficial documentation. They invite challenges to authenticity and completeness. And they expose sensitive testimony to systems that were never designed to meet legal evidentiary standards.

Courts and practitioners have spent decades refining procedures to protect the integrity of the record. Those safeguards should not be undermined by convenience technologies developed for an entirely different context.

---

Standing Firm Is Not Being Difficult

Court reporters who enforce boundaries around AI tools are not being obstructive. They are fulfilling their professional obligations.

The pressure to accommodate new technology is real, particularly in an environment that values speed and efficiency. But efficiency cannot come at the expense of accuracy, confidentiality, and trust. The official record is not merely a transcript; it is a legal artifact that carries weight, consequence, and permanence.

As technology continues to evolve, education will be essential—both for legal professionals and for the courts themselves. Clear policies, consistent practices, and informed dialogue can prevent misunderstandings before they escalate into disputes.

Until then, the presence of an AI note-taker in a legal proceeding should always prompt a pause. Not because technology is inherently suspect, but because the integrity of the record demands vigilance.

There is no substitute for a trained, impartial human being who understands not just how words are captured, but why the manner of their capture matters.

---

Here is a neutral, professional, reporter-safe script a court reporter can use verbatim in a remote deposition. It is designed to educate first, assert authority without confrontation, and protect the reporter and the record. The tone assumes good faith and keeps the reporter squarely within the role of impartial officer of the record.

---

Initial Script (Education First)

“Before we begin, I see that an AI note-taking or recording tool has attempted to join the proceeding. I just want to flag this briefly for everyone’s awareness.

In legal proceedings, the official record is created and maintained by an authorized court reporter. AI note-taking tools typically transmit audio and video to third-party servers for processing and storage, which can raise confidentiality, privilege, and chain-of-custody concerns. For that reason, these tools are generally not permitted as part of the proceeding.

If the bot was added automatically, I recommend removing it now so we can proceed without any issues.”

---

If an Attorney Asks Why It Can’t Be Used

“I understand these tools are common in business meetings. The difference here is that sworn testimony is subject to evidentiary and confidentiality rules. Once testimony is transmitted to an external platform, there’s no way to control how it’s stored, accessed, or reused, and that can create admissibility and security concerns later. My role is to protect the integrity of the official record for everyone involved.”

---

If Counsel Insists on Keeping the Bot

“I’m not in a position to admit an AI recording or note-taking tool without clear agreement from all parties. If you would like to proceed with it present, I’ll need to place a brief stipulation on the record confirming the following:

• The AI tool is not part of the official record
• The court reporter is not responsible for any data captured, stored, or distributed by the tool
• All parties understand the testimony may be transmitted to a third-party platform outside the control of this proceeding

If all parties agree to that on the record, we can proceed.”

---

If There Is No Agreement

“Without a stipulation from all parties, I’m unable to proceed while the AI tool remains in the room. Once it’s removed, I’m happy to continue immediately.”

---

Closing Reassurance (Optional)

“My goal here isn’t to restrict anyone’s workflow—it’s simply to ensure the record remains secure, accurate, and admissible for all parties. Thank you for your cooperation.”

---

Disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a court reporter–client, attorney–client, or advisory relationship. Practices and requirements may vary by jurisdiction, court, or governing authority. Readers should consult applicable rules, statutes, and qualified legal counsel regarding the use of technology in legal proceedings.