A Transcript Is Not Just Text

Artificial intelligence may help a court reach the written word faster. It cannot decide, by itself, what the court record is.

That distinction is at the center of a new Joint Technology Committee guide on AI-assisted transcription in courts. Released September 18, the guide says these tools are being used and tested in a limited but growing number of courts to improve efficiency, accessibility, and timeliness in transcript-related workflows. It also notes longstanding shortages of court reporters and transcribers.

The guide does not treat faster text as a substitute for the record. It says courts generally use AI transcription to support digital recording systems, produce draft transcript text, improve searchability, and enhance accessibility, rather than replace certified court reporting.

Its most useful rule is a simple one: AI-generated transcript text should generally remain an unofficial draft unless it is reviewed and approved under the law, rule, or court policy that governs the proceeding.

That means a court considering AI transcription must identify more than a vendor and a turnaround time. It must define the status of four different things:

1. The source recording. What is the original record of the proceeding?
2. The AI-generated draft. Who may see it, search it, or use it while it remains unreviewed?
3. The reviewed transcript. Who checks the text, corrects errors, and documents the review?
4. The official record. What makes a transcript certified or otherwise usable for filing, appeal, or another formal purpose?

Those categories are not paperwork. They protect the integrity of the proceeding.

The JTC warns that transcription accuracy may vary with speakers, dialects, overlapping speech, interpreter-mediated exchanges, recording quality, and courtroom acoustics. It recommends that courts validate systems using representative local recordings, establish documented quality-assurance thresholds, and require human review before relying on AI-generated text for an official purpose.

That approach is neither anti-technology nor blind trust. It gives a court a practical way to use speed without confusing a draft with the record itself.

For court leaders, the question is not merely whether AI can produce a transcript. It is whether the court has decided, before the transcript matters, who reviews it, what controls its use, and what makes it official.