Insights Articles

Court reporting is at a crossroads. Technology is advancing faster than at any other point in the profession's history, and artificial intelligence is challenging long-held assumptions about how the legal record should be created.

For some, these developments represent an exciting opportunity. For others, they raise legitimate concerns about accuracy, reliability, and the future of highly skilled professionals.

I see both sides.

I began my career as a realtime shorthand reporter more than 40 years ago, long before artificial intelligence or automated speech recognition entered the conversation. I know firsthand the extraordinary skill, discipline, and concentration required to produce an accurate realtime record. It is a craft that takes years to master, and its value should never be underestimated.

But I also believe we need to be willing to challenge the way we've always done things. The question is no longer whether technology will change court reporting. It already has. The more important question is: how do we embrace those changes without compromising the integrity of the record?

The Technology Is Here. Now What?

Automated speech recognition (ASR) has improved dramatically. What once required extensive manual transcription can now be converted into text almost instantaneously. AI-assisted tools can help identify speakers, organize testimony, search proceedings, and accelerate transcript production.

For lawyers, the potential benefits are significant: faster access to information, more efficient preparation, greater flexibility, and potentially more predictable costs.

But there is an important distinction between producing words on a screen and creating a reliable legal record.

Anyone who has spent time in an examination for discovery, deposition, arbitration, or courtroom knows that legal proceedings are rarely orderly conversations. People interrupt each other. Witnesses speak quietly, change their answers, or use unfamiliar terminology. Lawyers talk over one another. A single missed word can change the meaning of testimony.

Technology doesn't always recognize those distinctions, and a transcript that looks accurate isn't necessarily accurate.

Generative AI introduces another consideration. Its ability to summarize, interpret, and reorganize information can be tremendously useful to lawyers. But the legal record cannot be a reconstruction of what a system believes someone meant to say; it must faithfully reflect what was actually said.

Accuracy is not simply a measure of how many words a system gets right. It is about whether the record can be trusted when it matters most.

The Human Element Is Changing, Not Disappearing

Much of the discussion about AI centres on whether machines will replace people. I think that frames the question too narrowly. The more interesting development is how technology is changing the work people do.

Traditionally, the court reporter's highly specialized skill was capturing the spoken word. With today's technology, some of that work can be automated. But capturing speech is only one part of creating a defensible record.

Someone still needs to monitor the proceedings, recognize when the record is incomplete or unclear, ensure speakers are correctly identified, and oversee the accuracy and integrity of the resulting transcript.

That requires trained professionals who understand not only the technology, but the legal environment in which they're working. It also requires a different approach to training. We cannot assume that someone who knows how to operate recording software understands the responsibilities of court reporting. Nor should we assume that technology alone can provide the judgment, impartiality, and accountability the profession demands.

As our tools evolve, so must our standards for the people using them.

A Place for Both Tradition and Innovation

I have enormous respect for realtime stenographers. At the highest level, their work is almost like watching a concert pianist perform at Carnegie Hall. The combination of speed, accuracy, experience, and instinct is remarkable. For complex, fast-moving proceedings, the ability of an experienced realtime reporter to deliver an immediate working transcript remains an exceptional service. We should continue to recognize and value that expertise.

But here is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable, particularly for those of us who spent years mastering shorthand.

Technology is beginning to perform tasks that once required years of specialized training, and it can do some of them with considerably less effort. That doesn't mean it can replicate everything an experienced realtime reporter brings to a proceeding. It can't. But it does challenge the assumption that the traditional method of producing the record will always be necessary.

We can respect the extraordinary skill involved in stenographic reporting while acknowledging that technology is changing the value of some of the work that skill was developed to perform. That is a difficult conversation, but one our profession needs to have.

At the same time, we should be open to other methods of capturing and producing the record, where appropriate professional oversight is in place. Not every proceeding has identical requirements. Not every client needs the same service. And not every technological solution offers the same capabilities.

The future should not be about forcing a choice between stenographic reporting and digital reporting. It should be about understanding the strengths and limitations of each, being transparent about what is being delivered, and applying the right solution to the circumstances. Innovation should expand our options, not lower our standards.

Rethinking Value in Court Reporting

Technology also challenges how we think about the value and pricing of court reporting services. If software can perform some of the work that previously required significant manual effort, it's reasonable for clients to expect benefits. Greater efficiency should translate into better service, faster access, and fair, transparent pricing. But it would be a mistake to conclude that automation makes the creation of a reliable record inherently less valuable.

This is another tension we need to confront. We cannot justify the value of a service solely by how difficult or time-consuming it has traditionally been to produce. At the same time, we cannot allow the efficiencies of technology to obscure the expertise and accountability still required to deliver a record that can withstand scrutiny.

The value is not simply in the act of converting speech to text. It is in the expertise, oversight, security, impartiality, and accountability that give the finished record its credibility.

As an industry, we need to become better at explaining that distinction. Clients should understand who is responsible for their record, how accuracy is verified, how the underlying material is preserved, and what safeguards exist if the record is later challenged. Those questions matter far more than the particular technology being used.  

The Future Is Ours to Shape

The court reporting profession has adapted to technological change before. From paper notes and manual transcription to computer-aided transcription, realtime feeds, digital recording, and now AI, each advancement has changed how we work.

This moment feels different because technology is beginning to perform tasks that once defined the reporter's specialized skill.

We shouldn't pretend that won't change our profession. It will change job descriptions, training requirements, business models, and client expectations. Some traditional tasks will diminish, others will evolve, and new responsibilities will emerge.

Not everyone will find that transition easy. But protecting the future of court reporting cannot mean protecting every aspect of its past. We have an opportunity to shape that change rather than simply react to it.

That means investing in people as seriously as we invest in technology. It means being willing to test new approaches while remaining candid about their limitations. And it means maintaining standards that are grounded in the needs of the justice system, not in protecting any particular method of production.

The legal profession will continue to demand faster, more accessible, and more efficient ways of working. Court reporting should evolve alongside it.

The future of the record will not be defined by technology alone. It will be defined by the standards we insist on maintaining as technology changes. And ultimately, that is what our profession has always been about: creating a record that people can trust.