Courts across the country are delivering a blunt verdict on artificial intelligence: speed does not excuse accuracy. As lawyers face sanctions for AI-generated errors, judges are reaffirming an old rule in a new era—accountability remains human. In an age of automation, the certified court record and the professionals who create it have never mattered more.
Tag Archives: AIinLaw
Who Trained the Machine?
AutoScript AI is marketed as a “legal-grade” AI transcription solution trained on “millions of hours of verified proceedings,” yet the company provides no public definition of what verification means in a legal context or where that data originated. Founded and led by technology executive Rene Arvin, the platform reflects a broader trend of general ASR tools being rebranded for legal use without the transparency traditionally required in court reporting.
Could California Court Reporters Bring a Holmgren-Style Case Against CRB?
A quiet but consequential legal question is emerging in California: Can court reporters compel their own regulator to enforce laws already on the books against the expansion of digital-only reporting? Inspired by Texas’s Holmgren case, this analysis explores the hypothetical viability of a mandamus action against the Court Reporters Board for non-enforcement, examining standing, risk, and the strategic steps that would be required before such a case could responsibly proceed.
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.
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.
STENOIMPERIUM 