When Software Becomes a Silent Witness – Ethics, Technology, and the Coming Evidentiary Reckoning

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The American justice system has always absorbed new technology. Quill pens gave way to typewriters. Typewriters gave way to computers. Paper files gave way to digital archives. Innovation itself is not the threat.

What is new is not the presence of technology in courtrooms. It is the quiet relocation of evidentiary responsibility from accountable humans to opaque systems.

For the first time, courts are being asked not merely to use tools, but to trust them.

Artificial intelligence, automated speech recognition, remote recording platforms, and integrated courtroom systems are no longer peripheral aids. They are increasingly positioned as functional replacements for human-controlled processes that once sat at the very center of how the legal record was created, verified, and defended.

This is not a workflow change. It is an evidentiary shift.

In law, the value of a record has never rested solely on whether words were captured. It has rested on whether the system that produced them could be examined. Challenged. Cross-examined. Sanctioned. Corrected. The justice system evolved to insist on accountability not because humans are perfect, but because humans can be called to account.

Software cannot.

An algorithm cannot take an oath.
A platform cannot be cross-examined.
A vendor cannot occupy the role of a neutral officer of the court.

Yet courts are increasingly relying on systems whose inner workings are inaccessible to the very legal standards they are being asked to satisfy.

Automated transcription engines promise efficiency, but they are trained on proprietary data, optimized through undisclosed processes, and updated continuously without courtroom oversight. Recording platforms promise capture, but they embed technical dependencies, cloud custody chains, and commercial interests into what was once a tightly governed evidentiary function.

Even when a human touches the output, the foundational act—the capture, the parsing, the structuring of speech into text—is being performed elsewhere, by entities that bear no professional licensure, no judicial duty, and no direct evidentiary exposure.

This is not a technological critique. It is an ethical one.

Every evidentiary system carries an embedded philosophy about responsibility. The traditional legal record model is explicit: a trained, neutral human officer of the court stands between spoken language and legal consequence. That person is accountable to the court, to licensing bodies, to ethical codes, and to the law itself.

The emerging model is diffuse. Responsibility is spread across software developers, platform providers, cloud hosts, subcontractors, and after-the-fact editors. No single actor carries full custodial or evidentiary duty. When failure occurs, blame becomes technical. When error appears, it becomes systemic. When disputes arise, they are redirected into contractual rather than judicial arenas.

That diffusion is not incidental. It is structural.

And structural diffusion of responsibility is precisely what evidentiary systems were built to prevent.

In recent months, the federal judiciary itself has signaled unease. Proposed rulemaking around AI-generated evidence acknowledges what technologists have long known: that machine-produced outputs raise questions of reliability, provenance, and explainability that traditional evidentiary doctrine is not equipped to answer. The law is beginning to recognize that when machines mediate reality, courts inherit risks they cannot see.

The legal record now sits squarely within that tension.

Unlike demonstrative evidence or litigation analytics, the record is not ancillary to justice. It is constitutive of it. Courts do not merely refer to transcripts. They become bound by them. Appellate review does not supplement the record. It submits to it. When the record is wrong, justice is not merely delayed. It is redirected.

The ethical question, then, is not whether technology can be used in courtrooms. It is whether courts are prepared to absorb the consequences of relocating evidentiary trust from accountable professionals to technical systems designed outside the justice system’s moral and legal architecture.

Technology firms optimize for performance.
Courts must optimize for legitimacy.

Those are not the same mandate.

In a commercial environment, error is a cost. In a legal environment, error is a rights violation. In a technical environment, failure is debugged. In a judicial environment, failure becomes precedent.

This is why the justice system historically resisted inserting unaccountable intermediaries into evidentiary chains. It is why the record developed as a profession, not a product. And it is why the sudden enthusiasm for automation at the evidentiary core of proceedings demands more than pilot programs and procurement memos.

It demands ethical scrutiny.

When courts adopt systems whose operations they cannot fully interrogate, they are not merely modernizing. They are delegating a portion of their truth-finding function to entities beyond judicial reach. That delegation may feel incremental. Its consequences will not be.

They will surface in contested transcripts where no one can testify to how the words came to be. In appeals where provenance cannot be reconstructed. In disciplinary matters where custody cannot be traced. In cases where bias, omission, or distortion is alleged, and the answer offered is technical rather than legal.

At that moment, courts will discover what ethical scholars already know: that systems without accountability do not fail cleanly. They fail opaquely.

Court Reporting & Captioning Week is often framed around awareness and recruitment. Those goals matter. But the deeper moment now confronting the justice system is ethical. The infrastructure of truth is being re-engineered. The values embedded in that infrastructure are being quietly altered.

The profession of court reporting was never about typing. It was about custody. It was about oath. It was about neutrality. It was about a living, examinable bridge between human speech and legal consequence.

When that bridge is replaced with software, the justice system does not merely gain efficiency. It assumes a new moral burden.

Whether it is prepared to carry that burden remains an open question.

This series exists because that question is no longer theoretical.

✅ Disclaimer

This article reflects the author’s professional analysis and opinion, informed by courtroom experience, industry research, and publicly available sources. It is published for educational and discussion purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, regulatory guidance, or the position of any court, agency, or professional association.

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment