Automation and the Court Reporting Industry
As technology continues to advance, fears of robots replacing humans has increased across many
industries as corporations look to automate certain job functions to reduce costs and stay on top
of trends. This McKinsey report detailed which professions have the most potential for
automation, and it may surprise you that court reporting and the legal industry only had a 16%
chance. While the report was published in 2016, and the legal space continues to evolve and
incorporate litigation technology, it’s evident that the court reporting industry has still
maintained a strong need for human operation.
“Legal proceedings can get heated with people talking over one another, or you may have a
witness that mumbles or has a strong accent,” says Sandi Wilson, CSR (CA), FPR, CER, CDR,
senior director of litigation technology. “You must have a person there to keep decorum,
administer an oath, mark exhibits, identify speakers and ask for questions to be repeated if
needed, among other responsibilities. Technology is always going to need that human touch for a
100% verbatim record.”
The need for this human element demonstrates that it would be impossible to fully automate the
court reporting industry. However, across the nation, there is a critical shortage of stenographic
reporters which only continues to worsen year after year, due to low enrollments at stenography
schools and retiring reporters leaving the field. These two factors make it harder and harder to
meet the growing demand for stenographic reporters.
This is where litigation technology and digital court reporters can assist and serve as a way to
supplement the shortage. When digital court reporting was first introduced, many were unsure
about it, but they have slowly started to embrace the new technology and new type of (human)
court reporter.
“There is a misconception of what digital court reporting actually is and what it has to offer; I
think early on, some of the methods were not as advanced as they are today, and the reporters
were not always using quality equipment and technology, so opinions were formed based on the
earlier methods of digital reporting,” says Wilson. “Today, litigation technology is state-of-the-
art. The digital reporting method is no longer the lesser method of court reporting; it’s simply a
different method of court reporting with the end product being a verbatim transcript.”
As litigation technology continues to expand, court reporters have access to new programs and
functions that they may not have had before.
“Technology is only going to make a court reporter’s job easier; with artificial intelligence and
automatic speech recognition programs, it helps reporters work smarter, not harder,” says
Wilson. “For example, a reporter or transcriber manually typing up a proceeding will take longer
than a reporter or transcriber using ASR or AI to make the first pass on creating the transcript.
With ASR and AI translation in the 80-to-90% range, the reporter or transcriber can scope and
proofread the proceeding, bringing it to 100% accuracy in almost half the time.”
Ultimately, Wilson believes that the best-case scenario for the court reporting industry is a
combination of amazing technology and a well-trained professional.
“Rather than focusing on the method of court reporting, we need to focus on the professional
behind the method,” explains Wilson. “If a reporter has a great work ethic, is trained well, keeps
up with current technology and is knowledgeable of legal proceedings and decorum, they will
have job security for the rest of their career regardless of the reporting method they use to
capture the record.”
REFERENCES
Allen, M. (2013). Textbook on criminal law (12th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Arslan,M. (2018). The right to examination of prosecution witnesses. Zeitschrift für
Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 6(1), 218-228.
Bernard, T. J., Paoline III, E. A., & Pare, P. P. (2005). General systems theory and criminal
justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 203-211.
Bowden, P., Henning, T., & Plater, D. (2014). Balancing fairness to victims, society and
defendants in the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses: An impossible
triangulation? Melbourne University Law Review, 37(2), 539-584.
Cross, N. (2010). Criminal law and criminal justice. Sage.
Cruft, R. (2011). Crime, punishment, and responsibility: The jurisprudence of Antony Duff.
Oxford University Press.
Dignan, J., & Cavadino, M. (2007). The penal system: An introduction (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Duff, R. A. (2007). Answering for crime: Responsibility and liability in the criminal law.
Hart Publishing.
Ferguson, G. (2015). Criminal liability and criminal defenses. In J. D. Wright (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) (pp. 219-
226). Springer.
Hall, J. (2008). General principles of criminal law (2nd ed.). The Lawbook Exchange Ltd.
Husak, D. N. (1989). Justifications and the criminal liability of accessories. The Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 80(2), 491-520.
Husak, D. N. (1992). The serial view of criminal law defenses. Criminal Law Forum, 3(3),
369-400.
Ibrahim, N., & Nambiar, R. M. K. (2011). There are many ways of skinning a cat, my lord:
Humor in the Malaysian adversarial courtroom. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of
English Language Studies, 17(2), 73-89.
Lanham, D., Wood, D., Bartal, B., & Evans, R. (2006). Criminal laws in Australia. The
Federation Press.
Leverick, F. (2006). Killing in self-defence. Oxford University Press.
Monaghan, N. (2016). Criminal law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Pakes, F. (2010). Comparative criminal justice (2nd ed.). Willian Publishing.
Pham, T. T. N. (2016). Juvenile offenders in Vietnam and the right to defence. Youth
Justice, 16(1), 49-70.
Robinsn, P. H. (1982). Criminal law defenses: A systematic analysis. Columbia Law eview,
82(2), 199-291.
Sistare, C. T. (1989). Responsibility and criminal liability. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
