Jayne Williams is nearing the completion of her three-year training to become a court reporter, a profession many consider vulnerable to automation. Despite the rise of artificial intelligence and automated transcription services that are increasingly accurate and commonly used in courtrooms, Williams remains confident in the enduring need for human court reporters.
Court reporters capture verbatim records of legal proceedings, including not only speech but also nonverbal cues such as gestures and contextual courtroom noises like coughs or door slams. They often intervene when witnesses need to repeat testimony, especially in sensitive cases. Their certified transcripts serve as official legal documents critical for appeals, highlighting an expertise that technology has yet to replicate fully.
Legal professionals emphasize that the primary challenge is not AI outperforming humans but a severe shortage of trained court reporters. The U.S. is experiencing a decline in stenographers due to retirements and insufficient new entrants into the field. In California, for example, almost half of active court reporter licenses were issued more than 30 years ago. A 2025 report from the Council for the Advancement of Professionals, Technology and Unbiased Reporting estimated that the number of court reporters nationwide has fallen by 21 percent over the past decade, now totaling fewer than 23,000.
This shortage has prompted courts to increasingly rely on electronic recording and AI-powered transcription systems. Several states have taken steps to adapt; North Dakota recently eliminated the use of stenographers in favor of full electronic recordings, citing both shortages and the high cost of traditional transcripts compared to digital recordings. In California, the Supreme Court is considering whether to allow electronic recording in civil cases—a practice currently restricted—as about 72 percent of these cases lacked a verbatim record between 2023 and 2025.
Despite these technological shifts, the National Court Reporters Association warns of ongoing reliability issues with AI-assisted transcriptions. Cindy Isaacsen, the association’s president, points to incidents such as the 2023 double-murder trial of Alex Murduagh, where the defense challenged the accuracy of a digitally recorded transcript used as a backup.
Proponents of digital court reporting, however, argue that technology is evolving and that digital court reporters carry certifications ensuring they can competently operate equipment and produce acceptable legal records. James Holmes, chief revenue officer for Verbit.AI, a courtroom transcription service, views the future as a collaborative effort where legal professionals integrate AI tools to meet growing industry demands.
Training for traditional court reporters remains rigorous, requiring mastery of stenography at speeds of up to 225 words per minute with high accuracy. Williams, for example, dedicates many hours weekly to practice on a specialized keyboard system that allows rapid, chord-based transcription. Alternatively, a growing number of court reporters use voice writing, a method involving vocal shorthand captured by speech-to-text software. Emma Guillot from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, became certified after a 10-month online program and notes that while AI assists transcription, it cannot replace the trust placed in skilled human reporters by attorneys and judges.
As the legal system grapples with balancing cost, technology, and the need for precise records, the court reporting profession remains a vital component of ensuring fair trials and accurate legal documentation.