Digital reporting is not merely a different tool — it is a different evidentiary product. A transcript created after the fact from audio is reconstruction, not a contemporaneous verbatim record. Without licensed stenographic capture, individual accountability, and real-time certification, courts are left with hearsay dressed up as efficiency. The integrity of the record is not optional.
Tag Archives: AccessToJustice
Opinion: Texas Isn’t Confused About Digital Reporting — Only the Vendors Are
Texas is not confused about digital reporting — only the vendors are. Esquire, U.S. Legal, and Veritext recast a business model as a legal right, insisting courts ignore reliability gaps, nonexistent licensure, and the safeguards built directly into Rule 203.6. The trial court didn’t err; it exercised discretion. Corporate convenience is not access to justice, and marketing cannot replace a certified, accountable record.
Save Us, Elon – The Justice System Is Sleepwalking Into Collapse
America’s justice system is quietly collapsing as courts replace human stenographers with error-prone ASR. When the record fails, due process dies — and with it, the safeguards that protect us from wrongful convictions, corruption, and authoritarian drift. This is a plea to Elon Musk: recognize the danger before it becomes irreversible. Without a reliable human record, there is no justice — and no freedom.
A Harbinger of Collapse – What One Facebook Post Reveals About the Future of Court Reporting in the United States
A single Facebook post from a Canadian reporter—reduced to just 3–6 jobs a month—should terrify every U.S. attorney and stenographer. It is a glimpse of what happens when ASR replaces certified professionals: the market collapses, accuracy disappears, and justice erodes. Canada didn’t fail because reporters weren’t skilled. It failed because decision-makers chased “cost savings.” The U.S. is next—unless we stop it now.
When the Bill Comes Due – How California’s SB 988 Exposes a Nationwide Gap in Reporter Payment Protections
California’s SB 988 requires court reporting firms to pay reporters within 30 days — but attorneys have no matching deadline to pay the firms. This imbalance creates cash-flow strain, especially for small agencies, and highlights a national gap in reporter protections. With one-third of U.S. reporters in California, what happens here shapes the entire industry. Other states could — and should — follow with smarter, reciprocal legislation.
The Weight of Watching- A Court Reporter’s Reflection When Justice Falters
Court reporters are trained to remain neutral observers, preserving the record without influence or intervention. Yet we also witness the moments when the justice system’s safeguards fail—when potential juror bias goes unexamined or judicial oversight falls short. We cannot raise concerns or redirect the process; our role is silence. The emotional toll comes from knowing what fairness requires, and watching when it is not upheld.
A Membership Wall Around Opportunity – NCRA’s New Jobs Board Restriction Raises Questions in a Shrinking Profession
The National Court Reporters Association has quietly restricted its Jobs Board to dues-paying members only, blocking more than 13,000 qualified non-member reporters from viewing official court reporter openings. The move comes amid nationwide staffing shortages in court systems and raises concerns that a membership paywall could shrink the hiring pool and undermine efforts to preserve stenographic officialships. Critics warn the policy conflicts with the profession’s survival needs.
The Bubble Beneath the Record – A Financial Crisis in Court Reporting Is Coming
A financial bubble is forming beneath the court reporting industry. Private equity markups have pushed attorneys toward cheaper “alternative” record methods, but those substitutes fail evidentiary standards and are beginning to collapse under legal scrutiny. As reporters reject unsustainable rates and attorneys realize uncertified transcripts don’t hold up in court, the industry is nearing a correction. The record cannot be commodified—and the bubble will burst.
When Disclosure Isn’t Enough – Why AB 711 Doesn’t Serve Court Reporters or Access to Justice
AB 711 claims to curb “reporter waste,” but it’s a paperwork fix for a resource crisis. Mandating disclosure of who will hire a court reporter doesn’t solve shortages, improve access, or strengthen the profession—it risks normalizing hearings without certified stenographers. California needs investment in reporters, not bureaucracy that treats them as optional.
The Penny Auction Rebellion – How Stenographers Can Take Back the Record
In 1936, farmers fought foreclosure by staging “penny auctions,” bidding pennies on their neighbors’ land and giving it back to them.
Today, stenographers can do the same — through unity, co-ops, and reporter-owned platforms to reclaim our profession from AI, digital recording, and private equity control.
When Regulation Becomes Endorsement – How the CRB’s Firm Registration List Rewards Non-Reporter-Owned Corporations
California’s Court Reporters Board has turned oversight into inadvertent endorsement. Its public “Registered Firms” list features non-CSR-owned conglomerates like Veritext and Magna—but omits legitimate CSR-owned professional corporations. The result? True shorthand reporting firms are hidden while unlicensed corporations gain state-backed visibility. It’s a structural inequity that undermines professional integrity and consumer trust—and it demands reform.
The Battle for the Record Is Here — and CCRA Needs You
CCRA has taken a historic stand for every California court reporter. With attorney Scott Kronland of Altshuler Berzon, we’re defending the integrity of the record before the California Supreme Court. The fight against electronic recording isn’t just about jobs—it’s about justice. Your profession. Your record. Your voice. Stand with us. Join CCRA. Donate today.
Why Transcript Correction Disputes Are Rising — And Where the Problem Originated
Certified court reporters are seeing a rise in large-scale transcript correction requests, but the issue is not declining reporter skill. It stems from the increased use of digital audio and ASR-generated transcripts being treated as equivalent to stenographic reporting. Once attorneys began comparing transcripts with software tools, the inconsistencies became clear. Accuracy starts at the point of capture, and the method matters.
Why the Legal System Doesn’t Understand What’s Happening to Court Reporting
The justice system assumes court reporting is “handled,” but the record itself is collapsing under the rise of uncertified digital labor and AI transcripts. Attorneys, judges, and legislators don’t realize that without certified stenographers, accuracy, ethics, and access to justice all fail. This roadmap shows how to unite the legal community to protect the record—and the rule of law itself.
Court Reporters v. Digital Recording and Voice Recognition – A Comprehensive Breakdown
Digital recording and ASR may promise convenience, but they fail the test of law and logic. Machine transcripts aren’t sworn, certified, or admissible—they’re hearsay without a human declarant. Court reporters remain the only officers of the record who can guarantee accuracy, authenticity, and accountability in real time. Justice still depends on human precision.
The Rebirth of Steno – How a New Generation of Reporters Is Reclaiming the Record
After years of “steno is dying” headlines, the data tells a different story. Enrollment is climbing, schools are reopening, and the profession has grown by 231% in just two years. A new generation of reporters is reclaiming the record—proving that integrity, accuracy, and human intelligence can’t be replaced by algorithms. This is the rebirth of steno.
The End of the Record?
Verbit’s new mobile app lets anyone “record everything” — but at what cost? Without regulation, uncertified recordings could replace official transcripts, eroding reporter income and the integrity of the record itself. If the profession doesn’t fight back now, “copy sales” may be the least of what’s lost. This isn’t innovation; it’s deregulation disguised as convenience.
The Notary Loophole – Why Digital “Oath-Taking” May Jeopardize the Record
Digital firms are exploiting the “notary loophole” — using notaries instead of licensed court reporters to swear in witnesses and certify transcripts. But notaries aren’t officers of the court. This practice risks inadmissible records, broken chain of custody, and malpractice exposure. Only certified stenographers can lawfully administer oaths and safeguard the integrity of the record.
Free Roughs, Hidden Costs – How AI Transcription Is Quietly Rewriting the Legal Record
Kerala is openly mandating AI transcription in every courtroom. In the U.S., the same shift is happening quietly. Esquire and Veritext now hand out free AI rough drafts, reshaping transcript control through corporate platforms — while some LA Superior Court judges secretly use machine drafts during remote hearings. Policy, business, and judicial habit are converging — outside public view.
The Real Markup – Why Attorneys Think Reporters Are Overcharging (and Who’s Actually Pocketing the Profit)
Attorneys often assume court reporters are the ones driving up transcript costs. In reality, it’s the agencies in the middle—marking up reporter rates and layering on fees for condensed transcripts, concordances, exhibits, and repositories that reporters don’t see a penny of. As transparency grows, attorneys are discovering the truth: working directly with certified reporters saves money and strengthens the record.
Credentials vs. Competence – Rethinking Professional Standards in Court Reporting
Court reporting’s future depends on more than letters after our names. Credentials have value, but without strong state licensure, standardized titles, and real enforcement, they offer no structural protection. As attorneys push back on “high rates” and cheaper labor undercuts skilled reporters, the profession must unify around measurable skill, fair rates, and regulatory strength—not voluntary designations.
“No Such Thing as a Job Nobody Wants” – Debunking a Convenient Myth in the Court Reporting Industry
Agencies claim they use digital recorders only for the “jobs no one wants.” But reporters know better. Short PI and workers’ comp depos aren’t unwanted—they’re flexible, essential, and often preferred. Labeling them “undesirable” masks profit motives, undercuts opportunities for new talent, and devalues critical legal proceedings. There’s no such thing as a job nobody wants—only work that deserves respect and fair pay.
Fool’s Gold – Why Courts Cannot Turn Depositions Into a “Profit Center”
Courts are not “sitting on a gold mine” — they’re bound by the Constitution. Turning depositions into revenue streams ignores statutes, due process, and the ethical duty to safeguard verbatim accuracy. Sworn reporters are not obstacles but guardians of the record. Replacing them with AI “light edits” risks malpractice, reversals, and erosion of public trust. Fool’s gold is no substitute for justice.
Why Court Reporters Shouldn’t Negotiate Down — But Must Negotiate for Their Value
In California, court reporters are legally bound to publish consistent rates and apply them equally to all clients. My rates aren’t negotiable, because fairness, ethics, and transparency matter more than undercutting for a job. Consistency protects our licenses, our profession, and the record itself. My rates are my rates—for everyone, every time.
Small Agencies in Crisis – Competing Fairly in an Unfair Market
Small, reporter-owned agencies are being squeezed by Big Box firms offering lavish gifts, delayed payment schemes, digital reporters, and AI summaries. Competing on those terms is impossible — and unethical. But survival is still possible. By flipping their business model upside down — paying reporters faster, networking instead of consolidating, and selling ethics instead of perks — small agencies can thrive again.
Agencies Exploit Reporters Twice – Once for Their Labor, Once for Their Marketing
Court reporting agencies profit twice: first from our labor, then by conscripting us as unpaid sales reps. Some agencies do better, but one is too many. Reporters are not brand ambassadors, cookie pushers, or mock jurors. We are officers of the court, and when neutrality is compromised, justice itself is at risk. Agencies must change — or be called out.
AI Transcripts vs. Human Court Reporters & Why the Record Still Needs a Person
Stanford’s data shows ASR makes twice as many errors with Black speakers as white speakers. The NCRA warns of bias, misattribution, and chain-of-custody failures. In trial after trial, I’ve seen judges and attorneys turn back to the human transcript when accuracy matters. Until a machine can raise its right hand and swear to accuracy, the record still belongs to court reporters.
Who’s Really Swearing in Your Witness?
Attorneys can stipulate to many things, but not to override law. Only a judge can validate agreements that alter statutory or constitutional requirements. The 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee due process: no person can be deprived of rights without it. When a deposition officer asks parties to “stipulate” to a remote oath, that shortcut risks invalidating the entire proceeding.
Fair Compensation in the Age of Derivative Products – Why Reporters Must Create a New Rate Sheet
Agencies are profiting from condensed transcripts, indexes, concordances, and now AI summaries—often billing attorneys transcript-level rates while paying reporters nothing. This is unjust enrichment. Reporters must reclaim fairness by publishing new rate sheets that define compensation for every derivative product. From condensed pages to AI outputs, the message is clear: if it’s built on the transcript, reporters deserve their share.
AI Summaries, CCR 2474, and the Fight Over Who Owns the Record
AI deposition summaries aren’t innovation—they’re exploitation. Agencies are monetizing transcripts into derivative products without consent or compensation, creating unjust enrichment while undermining the integrity of the record. California’s CCR 2474 wasn’t written with AI in mind, but the principle remains: reporters must not be in the business of interpretation. It’s time for contracts, regulation, and reform to safeguard neutrality, fairness, and trust in the transcript.
Who Owns the Transcript?
AI-generated deposition summaries may look like efficiency, but they’re really exploitation. Agencies are repackaging reporters’ transcripts into derivative products—condensed transcripts, indexes, concordances, now AI summaries—without consent or compensation. This is unjust enrichment. Reporters must protect their work with contracts, while the Court Reporters Board closes loopholes in CCR 2474. The official record is sacred, and AI summaries threaten its integrity.
Busting the Digital “Mythbusters” – Why AI and Recorders Can’t Replace Stenographers
Digital advocates claim transcripts generated from recordings and AI are just as accurate as stenography. But predictive algorithms don’t capture testimony verbatim—they guess. That’s hearsay, not a legal record. Unlike stenographers, digital systems outsource editing, compromise confidentiality, and fail the chain of custody. Justice demands certainty, not predictions. Only stenographers deliver a verbatim, admissible record you can trust in court.
Weekly Pay vs. 30-Day Law – What California Reporters Need to Know About Lexitas’s New Policy
California law now requires agencies to pay reporters within 30 days of completing services—no exceptions for invoices, transcripts, or copy orders. Lexitas’s new weekly pay schedule sounds reporter-friendly, but compliance hinges on separating per diems, transcript deadlines, and copy orders. “Pay when paid” is no longer legal. Reporters must stay vigilant and hold agencies accountable.
Why Congress Must Hold Hearings on the Integrity of Court Reporting in the Age of Digital Recording and AI
Congress must investigate: Who protects the record when justice is on the line? The integrity of the legal record is at risk. Attorneys report defective transcripts, hidden digital recorders, and AI posing as stenographers. This isn’t just an industry dispute — it threatens due process nationwide. Congress must act. A hearing is urgently needed to expose these practices, enforce responsible charge, and protect the record. Our democracy depends on accurate transcripts.
Digital Reporting, AI, and the Future of Court Reporting – Allegations, Lawsuits, and Industry Implications
Veritext’s reliance on digital recording and AI transcripts is finally facing attorney pushback—and possible lawsuits. For years, I’ve warned that agencies exploit loopholes like “agency certificates” to bypass stenographers. Without a responsible charge statement, the legal record is at risk of fraud and failure. It’s time for attorneys and reporters alike to demand accountability and protect the integrity of the record.
What If the United States Made Your Voice and Likeness Your Property?
What if your voice became your legal property? Denmark’s proposed law could make every voice and likeness owned — with takedowns and royalties for unauthorized use. If the U.S. follows, ASR and digital reporting face huge risks, while stenographers become the gold standard for secure, human-verified transcripts. In a world of deepfakes, stenography is justice’s strongest safeguard.
Why AI “Prediction” Can Never Replace Verbatim Court Reporting
CAT software doesn’t replace court reporters—it’s a tool they control to produce a verbatim, certified record. Digital/AI systems are different: they predict what might have been said, dropping words, mishearing accents, and collapsing overlapping speech. In court, guesses aren’t good enough. Justice requires certainty, and certainty requires stenographers—not algorithms.
Why Digital Recording Endangers Justice in Texas
The Texas Supreme Court is weighing whether to treat digital recording as equal to stenography. But digital transcripts—outsourced, uncertified, and based on hearsay—threaten accuracy, security, and due process. Claims of a “stenographer shortage” are exaggerated; online programs are thriving, with waitlists in California. Protecting litigants means protecting verbatim reporting—not lowering standards for convenience.
The Last Guardians of Trust & Why Human Court Reporters Still Matter
“Cracker Barrel isn’t the last bit of nostalgia we have left,” says veteran court reporter Al Betz. “That may belong to live court reporters you can trust to keep an accurate record. A human being has to be ‘the one’ responsible, not the machine.” In an age of automation, justice still requires accountability only humans can provide.
When AI Requires Constant Human Monitoring, It’s Just Inefficiency in a High-Tech Costume & Why You Should Hire a Stenographer
When AI requires constant human monitoring, it isn’t efficiency—it’s inefficiency in a high-tech costume. In the legal field, accuracy isn’t optional. Stenographers deliver real-time precision, ethical accountability, and certified records without layers of human correction. Efficiency means getting it right the first time. Bring expertise to the table. Hire a stenographer.
Why Transcribing from Electronic Recordings Is Hearsay — and the Stenographic Profession’s Strongest Defense
AI and electronic recordings can’t replace stenographic reporters. Why? Because transcripts created by someone not present are hearsay — and hearsay is inadmissible. Only a sworn reporter assumes Responsible Charge of the record, accountable under law. AI can’t be punished, fined, jailed, or defend its transcript in court. Without accountability, it’s just unverifiable hearsay.
Hearsay on the Record – When Transcripts Lose Their Voice
“I know you think you understand the words I said, but what you understand is not what I meant.” That statement could be made in any courtroom in America. It captures the perennial problem of miscommunication. Words are slippery things—spoken in haste, accented by dialect, altered by noise, or even obscured by emotion. Now imagineContinue reading “Hearsay on the Record – When Transcripts Lose Their Voice”
AB 711 Passed—But Is It Really a Win? Why This New Law Signals the Next Phase in the Elimination of Certified Court Reporters
When a judge tells attorneys they “don’t need a court reporter”—despite one being present and assigned—the threat to justice becomes undeniable. AB 711 enables this erosion, shifting the burden of preserving the record onto attorneys while courts quietly sideline certified reporters. The result? Trials with no transcript, no appeal, and no accountability. This isn’t modernization. It’s judicial overreach.
Trial Without a Reporter – What I Witnessed in L.A. Court Should Alarm Every Litigator
When a judge told attorneys, “you don’t need a court reporter” — despite one being present and assigned — it exposed a growing judicial trend: bypassing licensed reporters in favor of unregulated recordings. Critics say it’s not about shortages. It’s about power, profit, and erasing the record itself.
Why AAERT-Certified Digital Reporters Are Not the Answer to the Court Reporter Crisis
Digital reporters certified by AAERT are not equivalent to licensed court reporters. They don’t write realtime, certify records on the spot, or meet the legal standards required in high-stakes proceedings. While digital recording may seem like a quick fix for shortages, it risks long-term damage to the integrity of the record. The solution isn’t substitution—it’s investment in the gold-standard profession that’s already working.
ASR in Court Reporting – Tool, Threat, or Transformation?
As court reporting faces increasing pressure from digital disruption, the debate over ASR (Automatic Speech Recognition) intensifies. Can it be used responsibly — or does its adoption spell the end of human-led recordkeeping? This article explores the nuanced question: If ASR is wielded by a trained, licensed stenographer, does it become a tool — or remain a threat? The future of our profession may hinge on the answer.
Save Steno Now, or Lose It Forever – Why Court Reporters Can’t Be Replaced by AI
Court reporting isn’t dying—it’s evolving. With overflowing steno schools, waitlists, and voicewriters accelerating training, we’re meeting demand. The real threat isn’t a shortage—it’s premature replacement by AI. If we let this profession collapse, we lose the infrastructure that guarantees accuracy in our justice system. If you want us tomorrow, you must choose to support us today—before it’s too late.
STENOIMPERIUM 