Court Reporters and Simultaneous Captioners

Some work of court reporters is already done with AI-like tools, but humans remain central. Courts increasingly use digital recorders and speech-recognition software to create draft transcripts. For example, apps like Zoom or TikTok use AI captioning to turn speech into text ^[1], and some courts link audio/video recordings to text.

Recent reports note companies are even using “speech-to-text” engines to help digital reporters work faster, producing rough transcripts in real time ^[2]. However, these tools are not perfect. An ABA Journal article points out that a lawyer called one AI draft transcript “not of much use” because it missed words ^[1].

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) similarly notes that technology can speed up transcription, but “court reporters will continue to be needed to review and edit” the results ^[3]. In practice, court reporters often ask people to repeat unclear speech or spell names, something AI cannot do by itself ^[1]. Experts warn that without human checks, AI transcripts could contain errors or even be tampered with.

In short, AI tools (like automatic speech recognition) are helping with tasks like producing first-pass transcripts, but humans are still doing the core work of ensuring every word is captured accurately ^{[3] [1]}.

Adoption of AI in court reporting is mixed. On one side, new tools are commercially available and could cut costs. Hiring a stenographer is expensive (BLS reports a median wage over $67,000 a year ^[3]), so courts facing reporter shortages sometimes try audio systems managed by remote “digital reporters” ^[2].

A single digital reporter might oversee multiple hearings, using AI-assisted workflows to help cover gaps. On the other side, the benefits are uncertain and the risks are high. Courts must buy and maintain special equipment, and judges worry about mistakes.

The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) has warned that relying fully on AI could endanger the record’s integrity ^[4]. Federal laws and regulations still call for certified transcripts for many proceedings, so human review is required. For simultaneous captioners (who provide live captions for TV or events), demand is stable because laws require captioning for viewers with hearing loss ^[3], but even there AI is used only as a helper.

In general, AI tools are becoming more common, but most experts expect them to augment – not replace – the skills of living reporters. Human judgment, legal knowledge and real-time listening remain essential to ensure the official record is correct ^{[3] [4]}.