The Texas Supreme Court is weighing a case that could change the way court records are captured in Texas and potentially beyond. At stake is more than technology. It’s about answering a fundamental question: Should the law be designed to protect litigants or the people capturing the record?

While Texas law embraces multiple methods for creating an accurate, reliable record, a group of litigants is seeking to exclude an entire class of trained, certified deposition professionals by challenging the use of non-stenographic methods.

A recently filed amicus brief makes clear that non-stenographic deposition transcripts are fully authorized under Texas law and meet the highest standards of accuracy, security, and reliability.

Here we break down the case to understand its significance:

What’s the issue?
Texas law allows multiple methods for capturing the official record, including both stenographic and non-stenographic (digital and voice) reporting. But a group of litigants is challenging that, attempting to exclude an entire category of certified deposition professionals. Their argument? That non-stenographic methods compromise the integrity of the judicial process—a claim that simply isn’t true.

The reality:
Digital reporting is not an experiment; it’s a proven, reliable solution. Digital and voice reporters are highly trained, certified professionals who use advanced audio capture systems, real-time text, and robust quality assurance protocols to deliver accurate transcripts. They play an essential role in addressing the court reporter shortage that is crippling our legal system.

Consider the facts from the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers 2025 Industry Trends Report:

  • The number of certified stenographers nationwide has dropped 21% in 20 years, driven by retirements and low enrollment.
  • Enrollment in stenographic schools is down 74%, drying up the pipeline of talent.
  • 75% of lawyers and courts report difficulty scheduling proceedings due to shortages.
  • More than half report increased costs and delays as a result.

The situation in Texas is no exception—it may even be worse. Restricting non-stenographic methods now would deepen the crisis, leading to longer delays, higher costs, and reduced access to justice.

The solution is clear:

Digital reporting helps courts keep cases moving, while maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and ensuring every litigant has access to the record. Without that record, the right to appeal—a cornerstone of our legal system—disappears.

The case underscores what’s at stake for Texas courts and for anyone relying on timely, accurate transcripts. A ruling to restrict non-stenographic methods would exacerbate the existing court reporter shortage, increase delays, raise costs for litigants and severely threaten equal access to justice.

You can read the full brief here: https://capturetherecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Amicus-Brief-final.pdf