Remote proceedings did not cheapen court reporting. They stripped away logistics and forced the profession to confront what it actually sells: custody of the legal record. As rate debates intensify, the future of stenography may depend less on where reporters sit and more on whether the profession anchors its value in accountability, professional responsibility, and the integrity of the record itself.
Tag Archives: law
AB 1189 Collapses — and Why That Matters More Than the Victory Lap Suggests
Assembly Bill 1189 did not collapse because of rhetoric or resistance to change. It failed because it attempted to shift control of California’s official legal record away from the state and into private hands. While its withdrawal is significant, it is not the end of the effort to reframe record creation. The next proposal will be quieter, cleaner, and harder to spot.
When an AI “Note-Taker” Shows Up to a Legal Proceeding
AI note-taking tools may be convenient in business meetings, but their presence in legal proceedings raises serious concerns about confidentiality, chain of custody, and record integrity. When unauthorized bots capture testimony, the official record can be compromised in ways that surface long after the proceeding ends. Protecting the record means understanding when technology crosses a legal line.
The AI Question Everyone Is Asking—And Almost Everyone Is Answering Wrong
The AI debate in court reporting and captioning is being framed incorrectly. This is not about whether humans are “better” than machines. It is about risk, accountability, and appropriate use. AI may assist in low-stakes contexts, but when the record carries legal or reputational consequences, decision-makers still need a licensed professional who can certify, correct, and stand behind the work.
When the Record Is Public, Who Pays for It?
Court transcripts are treated as public goods, but the labor that creates them is not. While federal courts quietly preserve a temporary restriction period before transcripts become freely accessible, state court systems operate under very different economic models. Together, these frameworks reveal how control of the legal record has shifted away from court reporters, steadily separating access from fair compensation.
The Readback Problem in Voice Writing—and How to Solve It
Readback is where the record proves its reliability. For voice writers, that moment too often collapses into rewind and guesswork when ASR fails. The solution is not better training, but better software: a persistent phonetic fallback, confidence-aware output, and word-level audio that function like steno notes. Voice does not need perfection—it needs an inspectable substrate.
The Voice Writing Question – Is the Fastest Entry Path Quietly Reshaping—and Risking—the Court Reporting Profession?
Voice writing is rapidly being marketed as the fastest path into court reporting, even as it remains unrecognized as stenography by the profession’s own national association. This article examines the growing disconnect between how voice writing is sold and how the legal record actually functions, why many machine reporters are learning voice for longevity—not superiority—and what happens when speed of entry outpaces experience in a profession built on precision.
When the Record Goes Missing – Digital Recording, Judicial Discretion, and the Fragility of the Official Court Record
As courts increasingly replace stenographic reporters with digital recording systems, the promise of efficiency collides with a harder truth: a recording is not the same as a reliable record. When equipment fails, speakers overlap, or entire proceedings go unrecorded, there is no safety net. The cost savings vanish quickly—leaving judges, attorneys, and litigants to reckon with what was lost.
When the Machine Gets It Wrong, Who Pays the Price?
Courts have been clear: artificial intelligence may assist lawyers, but it does not absolve them. When ASR systems miss testimony or AI summaries omit critical facts, responsibility does not vanish into the software. It lands squarely on the professionals who relied on it. As automation reshapes the legal record, a new reckoning over accountability is quietly approaching.
The Quiet Exploitation Behind the Federal Court Record
For more than twenty years, federal courts have profited from certified transcripts produced by court reporters—without compensating the professionals who created and certified the official record. PACER refunds may address user overcharges, but they do nothing to resolve the underlying exploitation of court reporters’ labor. Until reporters are paid for their work product, the federal court record rests on an unsustainable imbalance.
2026: The Year the Record Reasserts Itself
2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for court reporting. As courts and lawmakers confront the limits of agencies, AI, and automated recording, the profession is seeing renewed focus on responsible charge, accountability, and human judgment. Legislative clarity, reporter-centric technology, and coming court decisions may finally reassert who—and what—the legal record truly depends on.
When Software Tries to Stand In for a License – Why ASR “Cleanup” Is Not Court Reporting
As courts embrace automated speech recognition, a critical question is being overlooked: who controls the legal record, and where does it live? Replacing licensed court reporters with cloud-based transcription and post-hoc “cleanup” introduces risks that go far beyond accuracy. From silent realtime edits to juror privacy in voir dire, the integrity of the record—and public trust in the justice system—are at stake.
Vendors Are Not Officers of the Court
Court reporting agencies schedule proceedings and process invoices—but they do not create the legal record. Yet some national agencies are now attaching corporate “company certificates” to deposition transcripts they did not take and cannot lawfully certify. This quiet shift blurs statutory boundaries, risks inadmissibility, and threatens due process by substituting branding for licensure in the creation of sworn testimony.
Petition to the National Court Reporters Association – Request to Deny CEU Approval for Programming that Undermines Stenographic Capture
A slate of vendor-produced CEU programs is currently pending approval that promotes a method-agnostic view of record creation. This petition urges NCRA to act before approval is finalized, drawing a clear distinction between stenographic capture—machine or voice—by licensed professionals as opposed to digital recording systems that rely on post-hoc reconstruction. The moment to protect evidentiary standards is now, not after silence becomes consent.
If You Want Lower Transcript Costs, Help Create More Court Reporters
Transcript prices are not rising because court reporters are greedy; they are rising because there are fewer of them. Like any market, court reporting follows basic economic rules: when supply shrinks and demand grows, prices increase. If attorneys want lower transcript costs, the solution is not cheaper capture methods—it is helping rebuild, retain, and respect the human court reporting workforce.
Court Reporters, Technology, and Reality – Resetting Expectations in a Small Industry
Court reporting technology vendors are not Big Tech. They are small, specialized companies serving a shrinking professional market. Expecting instant, round-the-clock concierge support misunderstands the realities of the industry. Professional competence requires patience, self-sufficiency, and deep knowledge of one’s tools. When a reporter’s livelihood depends entirely on immediate vendor intervention, the risk is not poor service—it is misplaced dependency.
The Lessons of Badran – A Roadmap for How NCRA Must Defend the Legal Record
The Badran ruling exposed a growing risk: courts are redefining admissibility without guidance from the profession that creates the record. As audio-based reporting and vendor workflows spread, efficiency arguments are replacing evidentiary law. This article offers a clear roadmap for how NCRA can act—now, in active cases, and long-term—to defend due process, professional oversight, and the integrity of the record.
When the Record Becomes Elastic – Why Badran v. Badran Misunderstood Admissibility
Badran v. Badran exposes the danger of redefining testimony after the fact. In a remote deposition, a vendor-produced transcript was altered based on audio review, adding remarks not perceived in real time as testimony. Efficiency and stipulation cannot convert recordings into evidence. Without a licensed reporter in responsible charge, the record becomes elastic—and due process collapses.
When Efficiency Overrides the Law – Why Badran v. Badran Got Admissibility Wrong
The Badran v. Badran ruling did not affirm professionalism in modern depositions; it excused its absence. Admissibility does not turn on convenience, volume, or after-the-fact agreement. It turns on lawful process and qualified human oversight. Agencies are not officers of the record, and parties cannot stipulate away licensure, evidentiary foundation, or due process in the name of efficiency.
Petition to the National Court Reporters Association – In Re Stronger Regulatory Reforms for AI Innovation in Federal Court Proceedings
The integrity of the official court record is not a technology preference—it is a constitutional safeguard. This petition calls on the National Court Reporters Association to take a clearer, firmer position opposing AI-generated transcripts as the official record and to advocate for mandatory use of licensed stenographic court reporters to protect due process, accountability, and public trust in the justice system.
When Caution Becomes Capitulation – NCRA’s AI Filing and the Quiet Risk to the Court Record
As courts rush to embrace artificial intelligence, a quiet but consequential shift is underway. A recent federal submission by the National Court Reporters Association acknowledges AI’s flaws—yet stops short of drawing the line where it matters most. When caution replaces clarity, the integrity of the official court record, and the constitutional rights it protects, are placed at risk.
Celebration or Contradiction – When Corporate CEU’s Collide With the Reality of the Record
Corporate newsletters now celebrate “community” and “professional pride” while quietly advancing business models that make those same professionals optional. When private-equity-backed firms praise stenographers as essential yet invest in scalable digital replacements, the contradiction isn’t accidental — it’s strategic. Celebration becomes optics management, not advocacy, and reporters are left to reconcile flattering words with an economic reality moving in the opposite direction.
Using AI to Strengthen Your Voice – How Court Reporters Can Advocate Powerfully for Our Profession
AI isn’t here to replace court reporters—it’s here to amplify us. When used intentionally, AI becomes a strategic partner that helps reporters write stronger letters, clearer public comments, and more persuasive advocacy for our profession. It levels the playing field, giving every reporter the ability to speak with clarity, confidence, and impact. Your voice matters. AI simply helps the world hear it.
When the Machine Gets It Wrong, the Court Still Blames the Human
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.
When Practice Drifts From the Code – How Informal Norms Are Reshaping the Courtroom Record
In courtrooms nationwide, a quiet shift is underway. The rules governing the official record remain unchanged, yet everyday practice has drifted from the code. Realtime feeds and rough drafts, once tools for preparation, are increasingly treated as authoritative sources in high-stakes moments. This slow normalization of informality carries real legal risk—for attorneys, judges, and especially the reporters entrusted with preserving the record.
Relaxed, Rhythmic, Relentless – Why Letting Go Is the Fastest Way Forward in Stenography
In 2025, court reporting students are discovering a counterintuitive truth: speed does not come from pressure, panic, or perfectionism. It comes from rhythm, calm, and trust in the training already done. When stenographers stop treating every take like a verdict on their future, their writing smooths, accuracy improves, and progress accelerates.
Why “We’re Embracing AI” Is the Wrong Message for Court Reporting
In an era of relentless reassurance, court reporters are being told that embracing AI is the path forward. But optimism without precision is dangerous. Technology that assists a licensed human record is not the same as technology that replaces it. When method, authority, and chain of custody are blurred, the integrity of the legal record—not just a profession—is placed at risk.
When Capital Moves Faster Than the Courts – AI, Evidence, and the Next Legal Reckoning
As venture capital floods legal technology, artificial intelligence is being woven into the heart of litigation—often faster than courts, ethics rules, or evidentiary standards can respond. Tools that summarize testimony or generate chronologies promise efficiency, but raise unresolved questions about reliability, consent, and admissibility. History shows that when automation outpaces scrutiny, courts eventually intervene—sometimes after irreversible damage has already been done.
The Profession No One Talks About—Until Everything Depends on It
From ancient Phoenician scribes depicted in Disney’s EPCOT to modern realtime stenographers writing 225 words per minute at 95 percent accuracy, court reporters have always safeguarded civilization’s most critical words. They are the neutral architects of the legal record, preserving testimony that determines rights, liberty, and history itself. In an era of automation myths, their human precision remains indispensable.
When Speed Replaces the Record – What “FTR Now” Reveals About the Future of Court Transcription
A new legal tech product promises “searchable transcripts” from courtroom audio in minutes, built in just two days and priced at seven dollars an hour. But speed and convenience come at a cost. When automated transcription is mistaken for the official record, accuracy, accountability, and due process are quietly put at risk—often before attorneys realize the distinction matters.
A Court Reporter Christmas
The Polite Language of Professional Displacement
Veritext’s latest CEU webinar series is being framed as professional development, but its core message deserves scrutiny. By asserting that capture method does not matter, the programming advances a narrative that conflicts with evidentiary law, professional ethics, and NCRA’s stated mission. With CEU approval still pending, members have a narrow window to speak up—before silence is mistaken for consent.
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.
The Masks Court Reporters Wear—and the Cost of Wearing Them Too Long
Court reporters are trained to capture the truth verbatim, yet many have learned to suppress their own. In a profession built on accuracy and independence, silence has become a survival strategy. Over time, professionalism has been mistaken for passivity, and conformity for neutrality. The result is a culture where dissent feels dangerous—and where thinking independently is quietly discouraged.
An Open Letter to Kristin Cabot: A Profession That Understands Second Acts
Branded “unemployable” after a viral moment, Kristin Cabot’s story raises a larger question: what happens to capable professionals when public shame outpaces truth? Court reporting offers a rare second act—one grounded in skill, neutrality, and measurable merit. In a profession that values accuracy over optics, redemption isn’t performative. It’s earned, keystroke by keystroke.
Bridging the Career Services Gap in the Court Reporting Profession
Court reporting associations are facing a reckoning. Reporters are not disengaging because they dislike the profession; they are disengaging because their associations no longer align with their most urgent priorities: jobs, advancement, training, and real career security. In an era of technological disruption and shrinking pipelines, associations that fail to become career catalysts risk losing not just members, but the future of the profession itself.
When Two Depositions Are Scheduled but Only One Goes Forward – The Growing Fight Over Same-Day Cancellation Fees
Court reporters routinely reserve separate time blocks for each scheduled deposition. When one witness appears and another cancels, the afternoon no-show is a distinct economic loss—no different from how interpreters, electricians, therapists, or attorneys handle missed appointments. Two job numbers mean two billable events. Same-day cancellations must be compensated as a matter of fairness and professional standard.
Opinion | Digital Reporting Is Not “Clearly Lawful.” It Is Clearly Inferior — and Legally Dangerous
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.
When Speaking Up Becomes a Liability – How Court Reporting Learned to Punish Action
A recent Facebook post suggests no one acted to stop the court reporting crisis. That is not true. Many tried—and learned quickly that speaking up put a target on their backs. In a profession dominated by women, reformers are often torn down by their own peers rather than supported. Silence became safer than leadership, and the cost of that culture is now impossible to ignore.
Why Attorneys Should Think Twice Before Accepting Digital Reporting – Stenographers Will Not Fix Your Bad Audio After the Fact
Digital reporting may look modern and inexpensive, but it carries a dangerous illusion. When trials are recorded digitally, stenographers will not—and cannot—repair the record afterward. Audio fails. Speakers are misidentified. Critical testimony disappears. When the verdict is in and the appeal begins, attorneys often discover too late that no reliable transcript exists. Accuracy cannot be retrofitted.
A Kentucky Hearing Shows Why Digital Recording Is Not — and Never Will Be — an Acceptable Official Record
A Kentucky administrative hearing again exposed the fatal flaw of digital recording: when the agency’s “official” audio failed, a certified court reporter was the only reason the record survived. Due process cannot depend on glitchy technology or missing audio files. This case proves, yet again, that the stenographic reporter—not a digital recorder—is the only acceptable guardian of the legal record.
Why Most Court Reporters Don’t Quit — And Why That Matters
An AI summary claims court reporters quit because the job is unbearable. The reality is the opposite. Most reporters stay for decades—often an entire working lifetime—because the profession rewards mastery, autonomy, and adaptability. Court reporting is demanding, yes, but for those built for it, it becomes a superpower, not a burnout sentence.
Trial Etiquette – The Unwritten Code Every Court Reporter Is Expected to Follow
Trial etiquette carries unwritten rules, and one of the strongest is this: if you accept a trial, you finish it. Leaving mid-trial hurts colleagues, judges, and even jurors—especially when readback requests arise and transcripts were never prepared. Substitute reporters are often handed unusable roughs or incomplete PDFs, creating risk of reversible error. Judges notice. Agencies remember. Professionalism demands continuity from start to finish.
Sliding Into the High-Speed You – What a Russian Physicist’s Theory Teaches Court Reporters About Passing the CSR, RPR, and Every Other “Impossible” Test
High-speed stenography isn’t about gripping harder — it’s about shifting into the version of yourself who already writes with ease. When you stop treating certification like a monster and adopt a “no-big-deal” mindset, your hands relax, your rhythm returns, and speed finally emerges. You don’t force 225. You become it.
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.
The Great Wage Mirage – When Digital Court Reporting Claims Outpace Reality
A viral wage graphic now claims digital court reporters in Los Angeles earn more than licensed stenographers and federal officials. The figures collapse under scrutiny, revealing a dangerous distortion of how court reporting is valued and understood. When passive recording is framed as more lucrative than producing the certified legal record, the profession’s integrity is compromised and the public misled about justice, skill, and accountability.
The Familiar Face Fallacy & Why Court Reporters Must Question the Platform Narrative
Familiarity is not alignment. When a recognizable face stands before the profession offering reassurance, it is easy to mistake comfort for safety. But critical thinking demands a harder question: who benefits if our work becomes optional? Reporters must look beyond polished narratives and ask what external platforms gain from reshaping our role. Strategy deserves scrutiny, not applause, and vigilance is the price of sovereignty always.
Sliding Into the High-Speed You – How a Forgotten Quantum Theory Helps Court Reporters Break Plateaus and Pass the CSR, RPR, and Every Other “Impossible” Test
High-speed stenography isn’t about gripping harder — it’s about shifting into the version of yourself who already writes with ease. When you stop treating certification like a monster and adopt a “no-big-deal” mindset, your hands relax, your rhythm returns, and speed finally emerges. You don’t force 225. You become it.
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.
An Off-the-Record Recording Takes Center Stage in Judge Hannah Dugan’s Federal Trial
When jury selection begins next week in the federal obstruction case against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, the proceedings will unfold under the shadow of a piece of evidence rarely seen in an American courtroom: an off-the-record audio recording captured inside her courtroom during a criminal calendar session. The recording—sealed from public releaseContinue reading “An Off-the-Record Recording Takes Center Stage in Judge Hannah Dugan’s Federal Trial”
STENOIMPERIUM 