The National Court Reporters Association was created to guard a profession built on precision, licensure, and trust. But its expanding relationships with digital training companies, corporate consolidators, and branding organizations raise an urgent question: is NCRA still defending stenography, or has it begun financing its own displacement? When a trade association profits from the markets replacing its members, neutrality becomes a business model.
Tag Archives: LegalRecord
Court Transcript Rules Shift in Los Angeles County – What Litigants Need to Know
On January 21, 2026, the Los Angeles County Superior Court quietly clarified how parties may purchase reporter’s transcripts on appeal—reshaping the financial and procedural mechanics behind who pays, who receives copies, and how the official record moves forward. While technical on its face, the change touches the core of appellate practice: access to the words that ultimately decide cases.
The Quiet Fear Inside the Record
Court reporters rarely speak about fear, yet it quietly accompanies some of the most important moments of their careers. It surfaces in high-stakes trials, unfamiliar courtrooms, and proceedings where every word carries lasting consequence. This fear is not evidence of failure. It is evidence of responsibility. And learning to work with it, rather than retreat from it, may be one of the profession’s most essential skills.
An Open Letter to Judges – On the Custody of the Record
The judiciary’s authority endures not through rulings alone, but through the integrity of the record. When courts weaken professional accountability over how proceedings are captured, they do not merely modernize operations—they destabilize the evidentiary foundation of justice itself. The legal record is not output. It is evidence. And evidence requires human, licensed custody.
The Record Is the Case – Why Saving Court Reporting Means Saving Legal Reality
The record is not a convenience. It is evidence.
Every ruling, appeal, settlement, and precedent rests on the integrity of the transcript. When courts weaken the standards governing how the record is created, they are not modernizing—they are destabilizing the very foundation of justice. Saving court reporting is not about preserving a profession. It is about protecting legal reality itself.
When a Profession Is Under Siege, Its Trade Association Should Not Be Hosting Craft Night
As courts experiment with digital capture and AI transcription, the integrity of the legal record is under unprecedented pressure. Yet California’s flagship Court Reporting & Captioning Week is being promoted with craft nights and lifestyle events. At a moment that demands advocacy, public education, and professional defense, the association’s messaging risks trivializing a profession that exists to safeguard due process itself.
Remote Reporting Didn’t Devalue the Profession. It Forced It to Clarify Its Value.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Where the Record Is Really Being Written – A Quiet Transformation Hidden in Plain Sight
Courtrooms across America are quietly shifting from certified verbatim reporting to AI transcripts, digital recordings, and agency-controlled “roughs.” The result? Hearsay masquerading as the official record — with no clear custodian, no accountability, and enormous power flowing to private platforms. This isn’t just a professional issue; it’s a constitutional one. If we lose control of the record, we lose control of justice itself.
STENOIMPERIUM 