We are right in the middle of the digital age, and just about everything is in the process of being digitized. The world looks markedly different today than it was ten years ago, with wireless charging systems, self-driving cars, and fold-able smartphones replacing their preceding technologies almost entirely. Court reporters stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of all these advancements, especially in computing. For one, they still take notes using ancient stenographs. Moreover, most of them edit the resulting transcripts manually, disregarding the voice recording and editing software available today. To a layperson, stenographic court reporters may seem old-fashioned and unnecessary in modern times. But is this the case?

Why Court Reporters are Necessary

Court reporters undergo a lot of training to get certified. As such, they are in a much better position to deduce different dialects, accents, and word pronunciations. However, even the best software and computers would have difficulty transcribing most accents accurately. Further, reporters do not need additional equipment other than their stenographs (and maybe printers) to do their work. In contrast, computers and transcription software are not yet developed to the point where they can provide accurate transcripts independently. Therefore, any transcript they generate has to be proofread and edited by seasoned reporters before it can be certified. It is not a surprise, therefore, that most courts and attorneys choose to save their money and go with actual stenographers.

Court Reporting in the Era of Digital Technology

Traditionally, court reporters only had their stenographs at hand and had to transcribe and edit their transcripts, which was time-consuming manually. However, the advent of advanced computers and voice recording software, coupled with increasingly impatient clients, has occasioned a change of tact in the industry. Now, most reporters use computers in the course of their jobs. Reporters can convert their shorthand notes into legible transcripts in real time using computers, tablets, and even smartphones. Instantaneous transcription means courts and clients can receive accurate and legible transcripts within a few minutes.

Another benefit of integrating computers in court reporting is that it allows real-time captions of court proceedings to be relayed to the media. This is especially important in public-interest cases where a lack of accurate records can lead to misinterpretation of facts. To put it simply, court reporting is an evergreen profession that has evolved over the years. To their credit, court reporters, and their clients, are generally willing to embrace new technology. Besides making work easier, integrating new technology in court stenography helps counter the idea that the profession is “stuck in the past.”

The Demand for Court Reporters

It is notable that with all the job cuts implemented by governments and judiciaries in the past few years, court reporters were never fired en masse. On the contrary, it is clear to everyone, even the most technologically advanced countries in the world, that stenographers are indispensable. The demand for stenography services has risen in recent years, driven mainly by the private sector, as opposed to courts or governments.

Do you need to services of a professional court reporting firm in New Jersey? If you do, contact us today!

Stenographers (also known as court reporters) are an integral part of court proceedings. Their speed and accuracy in taking down what’s said in courtrooms, and preparing transcripts for the same is equal parts astounding and commendable. 

And even as many courts start reconsidering the roles of their stenographers in the age of faster and more dynamic digital recording technology, the era of the human court reporter is nowhere near its end. Read on for a more detailed explanation of why we think court reporters are too important to become obsolete. 

High Responsiveness to Varying Situations 

One of the things that set certified court reporters apart from digital recorders is the fact that they can request clarification in case they didn’t hear a speaker’s words correctly. As such, they can produce a highly accurate transcript that not only reflects what was said during the session, but that is also free from the reporter’s biases and misinterpretations. 

On their part, digital audio recorders lack the self-awareness and intelligence of humans and would keep on recording even when the speaker is continuously mumbling. When it’s time to transcribe the words, the machine may get confused and thereby produce a transcript that is both incomplete and inaccurate. Seeing as court records need to be very accurate and objective, you can see why many courts prefer to leave audio recording jobs to humans. 

More Experience 

While it is possible that the recording machines of the future will be more suitable for court audio recording thanks to advanced machine learning techniques, human reporters are still more experienced in the nuances of court proceedings and audio recording than the computerized recording systems. 

For instance, a certified stenographer who has spent years in courtrooms will discern common short forms of words and non-verbal cues much better than computer software. They can also make quick shorthand notes and seamlessly translate them into complete transcripts, something that digital recorders can’t do. 

No Breakdowns

One prevailing problem with computerized reporting systems is their propensity to break down or crash when they develop even the most minor defects. Most of them also won’t work without electricity, which would force the courts to seek alternative solutions when the power goes off. 

In contrast, human reporters can operate in any environment, with or without power, and can be expected to maintain performance consistency at all times. The only way they won’t perform as well would be in case of a major sickness, which is not very common. 

Necessary Compromise

As much as human court reporters are essential and relatively accurate, they too have their downsides, including high costs, comparatively slow speeds, and in some cases, personal biases. So, in the future, many courts will undoubtedly be looking to reach a necessary compromise between man and machine as they look to get better session transcripts and reduce costs. 

Already, some court reporters are using specialized audio recording apps and note-taking devices in their work. A full shift to automated reporting is, however, highly unlikely, at least in the near future, as the available technology does not match the focus, intelligence, and nous of most human stenographers. 

Re: Promoting CCRA-NJ’s Rebuttal to Could Automation Be the Antidote to the Court Reporter Shortage

Dear Colleagues:

As many of you by now may very well be aware, on May 23, 2019, the New Jersey Law Journal published a damaging article captioned: Could Automation Be the Antidote to the Court Reporter Shortage? The article is filled with false representations and inaccuracies, which if left unaddressed and uncorrected, could prove damaging to both our livelihoods and the livelihoods of those with whom we engage their court reporting services. Recognizing this, your CCRA-NJ Board of Directors knew it had to take action. It was the charge of the CCRA-NJ Communications Committee to collectively and collaboratively issue a response. NJLJ editors after seeing our response were happy to oblige and correct the misinformation contained within the May 23 article. Our rebuttal is now appearing on the NJLJ website (www.njlj.com) as well as in their July 8, 2019, print edition. Links to both articles are below.

Could Automation be the Antidote to the Court Reporter Shortage
May 23, 2019
https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2019/05/23/could-automation-be-the-antidote-to-the-court-reporter-shortage/

Human Court Reporters Cannot be Replaced
July 5, 2019
https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2019/07/05/human-court-reporters-cannot-be-replaced/

CCRA-NJ is calling on you to educate your resources and contacts by addressing with them the importance and differences there are when using a NJ licensed CCR vs a tape or audio recorder. Some suggested outlets are: Inserts accompanying your transcripts, links attached to your email signature lines, phone calls or in-person meetings or presentations, and through your social media outlets such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Blogs and Tweets. “Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.” – G.K. Chesterton.

Very truly yours,

Mark H. Renzi, CCR, RPR
CCRA-NJ President

Automated tech is being integrated in a lot of places now, from the grocery store to the bank. So, could technology result in making this human job obsolete? It’s possible, but not likely. At the moment, computers as well as voice recognition are not nearly at the point where they could be a smart substitute.

It is theoretically possible that at some point, the technology would be developed enough and error-free enough that they could be utilized. Anything is possible, and technology is constantly evolving.

Right now, courts need stenographers and will likely continue to do so in the future. The simple need for them is that humans are really best suited to this job and have been doing it reliably for decades. That reliable factor is precisely what makes them such a preferable choice when it comes to recording events in the courtroom and creating transcripts.

While some courts are experimenting with using digital recording, most of them are doing so in conjunction with human court reporters. It can be helpful, but ultimately, many of them are finding that the money that they save is being spent on repairs, maintenance, and more. The same reporter that would be replaced by the machine may very well need a tech expert to come along with it, costing much more than a simple and reliable human reporter.

Add in future costs such as support, software, upgrades, file storage, wiring, and more, and you can see that courts using technology for the main purpose of saving money might not be a final, end-all and be-all solution. All that glitters is not always gold, as they say.

Digital recordings also must ultimately go through being transcribed and then proofread after and even certified by a transcription expert or court reporter– so human support is still required even if tech is used. Add problems on top of that and it’s even more costly, as tech support often is.

Reporters are trained to be reliable and not make errors. They’re good at their job and very capable. They also have the benefit of being able to ask for more clarity or stop proceedings to record something accurately. This all adds to an error-free, accurate record, which is the most important thing. They will also easily be able to omit off-the-record statements.

Humans can always sort through audio better than the current computers can. It’s an easy decision when it comes to choosing between tech vs. people in this field. Technology has a long ways to go until it can match the ability of reporters to transcribe in the court room.

If it is a matter of quality transcriptions or risking it all, of course courts are going to go with the clear choice of hiring a reporter and not relying on technology. With superior performance and greater reliability, always go with a human court reporter when in doubt!