With that said, reporters have proven over the years to be almost indispensable to the legal system. However, with the emergence of computer technology and voice recognition, it is becoming apparent that their time is almost up. Nevertheless, one question remains – can voice recognition technology really replace certified court reporters? Well, let’s find out.

Technology and the legal system

The adoption of technology brings with it a host of benefits to the judiciary. Apparently, it has become much easier to streamline court processes, organize data, and even lower operational costs. What’s more, is that court cases do not have to drag for years before concluding.

Nevertheless, the emergence of legal technology is not short of challenges. As we move towards technology, court reporters stand to lose the most, as it seems digital recorders and voice recognition will soon take precedence in most courtrooms. In fact, some courts have begun to experiment with technological gadgets in order to save money!

On the flip side, these changes are regrettable, considering the time and money put by court reporters in mastering their trade.

So what does this mean for stenographic court reporting?

Well, stenographic court reporting requires a significant level of investment. In essence, the court has to hire reporters and pay their salaries or wages depending on their contractual agreement. However, with technology, installing digital recorders requires a one-off payment with minimal operational and maintenance costs.

Nevertheless, this does not mark the end of court reporting by humans. Using voice digital technology in courtrooms still requires humans to operate. Essentially, someone has to process stored files, maintain the recorder, and even perform software and hardware updates. 

As if that is not enough, someone has to transcribe, proofread, and certify the digital recording for accuracy. At the end of it all, adopting technology in the courtrooms is just as expensive, or even more costly than enlisting a certified stenographic court reporter.

Another point worth mentioning is that machines are also prone to error just as humans are. The worst part is that a machine cannot rectify a mistake on its own, but humans can! Moreover, they record everything, including conflicting noises, hence distorting crucial evidence. This particular distinction is of great importance as far as accuracy and quality of court reports are concerned.

The Bottom line

Based on the above-mentioned points, it is now apparent that voice recognition technology cannot replace certified court reporters, even in a hundred years. 

Notably, the human aspect is vital when it comes to reporting court proceedings accurately. Technology may help streamline the court processes, but it cannot produce accurate transcripts in the right context.

Certified court reporters are a valuable part of the legal system. It’s an important job, but could these reporters be replaced with technology down the road? No one really likes to think about their career being made obsolete by technology, but it is possible that it could happen. Voice recognition and computers are advancing complexity and ability. Read on to find out whether tech like voice recognition technology is likely to replace certified court reporters in the future.

Stenographic court reporting is an important feature of any court. However, some courts have started to use digital recording devices as well as court reporters. Part of their motivation is to save money, as certified court reporters do cost money to hire. It’s a case of a lot of courts experimenting with how well this tech performs in the hopes of saving some funds from not hiring reporters. This may seem like a worrying trend for people whoa re actually employed in this field, especially for those who have spent a significant amount of time and money to become certified and work in their field.

At the same time, there might not be as much to worry about as you might think. Although you don’t have to pay the machines wages, the digital tech does still require money and people to operate. It’s not just a case of putting the money down and being able to avoid future costs, as hard wiring, digital storage files, software, support, upgrades and maintenance can all cost quite a bit. That’s in addition to monitoring and operation of the tech for each proceeding it is used for.

Also remember that ultimately any digital recording must be transcribed and proofread as well as certified by a court reporter or transcriptionist. To be operating at all this tech still requires human support, and may even be more expensive to operate if it is experiencing problems. While good reporters are not cheap, neither is tech support– and it may even cost more in the long run, defeating those hopes of saving funds.

While there is such a thing as human error, a reporter is so experienced in their job that they are very good at what they do. Unlike a machine, they can sort through a din of conflicting noise in a room. A human can also stop and ask for clarity whereas a machine may not record the audio necessary. A reporter can also leave out statements that are off the record and keep those on, which tech cannot yet do. Without the ability to distinguish context or sort through multiple audio sources, technology unfortunately has a way to go before it matches the transcription ability of court reporters.

It’s unlikely that court reporters will be kicked out by technology anytime soon. In a choice between quality and risk, the courts are not going to jeopardize necessary clear transcriptions for some tech that promises to save them a bundle (which it is unlikely to do). Perhaps a combination of the two will happen in the future, but for right now, reporters are more reliable and perform better. The tech right now is simply not an adequate substitute.

What does this mean when it comes to stenographic court reporting?

Some courts these days have begun to use digital recording devices in addition to court reporters. Unfortunately, this is not so much a personal move as it is a business one. Certified stenographic court reporters do require a certain amount of money to hire, and courts are starting to experiment with using digital recorders in order to save money. In some cases, courts have been even able to put digital technology in the courtroom using the funds that they’ve saved from not hiring reporters.

This may be discouraging news for people in the field of stenographic court reporting. After all, many court reporters have put time and money into their profession. However, certified court reporters may not have as much to fret about as one might think. This digital technology still requires a significant amount of money and even humans to operate. The cost of original purchase is often the tip of the iceberg by being the easiest aspect of using this technology for courts. Hardwiring the equipment can cost a pretty penny, as can digital storage files, tech support, maintenance, software and hardware support and upgrades, and close monitoring and operation of the system itself during each proceeding. Last but not least the digital recording must be transcribed, proofread and certified to for accuracy by either a transcriptionist or by a stenographic court reporter. Where digital recording if done correctly involves layers of personnel, all of the aforementioned is achieved by one stenographic certified court reporter. In many ways, the technology is just as expensive as hiring a stenographic court reporter—and as you might surmise in some cases more so. After all, techs aren’t cheap and neither is good quality, which inarguably is vital to our justice system.

There’s also such a thing as human error. Unfortunately, human error also extends to the machines. Human ears can often select the dialogue that they need to take down out of a din or conflicting noises in the room. A machine cannot. If the testimony is drowned out or made difficult to hear, the digital recording system may not be able to record the correct audio or will even fail to accurately take down the important audio aspects, becoming overtaken by the wide range of noise happening. In addition, a court reporter will be able to accurately take down on-the-record statements and leave out off-the-record ones, while a computer system cannot. This is an important distinction.

The state of voice recognition means that at this moment in time, it’s no match for a certified stenographic court reporter. This has been proven as well by the fact that this was an issue of concern decades ago for reporters that has not come to pass. A court reporter is required to provide accurate transcriptions of what has occurred in the court room. Going into a court without one leaves the court susceptible to the weak spots of the technology and could even have disastrous results. Unfortunately, the technology cannot distinguish between context and, without a human element, is incapable of stopping and requesting clarification for the purpose of accurate transcripts. An accurate record is indispensable to the process.

Will certified court reporters be eventually replaced by technology? It’s unlikely. When it comes to the battle of quality and accuracy over misperceptions of cost savings, quality and accuracy must inevitably win. The conversion to the tech is unlikely to be so effective that it displaces court reporters. Perhaps the two will be utilized in tandem in the future similar to the way court reporters and videographers work together today. But for now, digital recording is too susceptible to error to be an effective substitution for certified stenographic court reporters. On top of that, human beings don’t need tech maintenance and repair– something that will be necessary if courts want to make a permanent place for advanced voice recording technology. For now, we are confident in our opinion that court reporters are here to stay.