By KELSEY SWANEKAMP
Buffalo Law Journal

From electronic discovery to video teleconferencing, technology has transformed the practice of law, and the field of court reporting is following suit.

Technology has given court reporters access to new tools and new opportunities, but it may also jeopardize their place in the court system.

"Everyone is threatened by technology, but it's about how you address technology - it adds an additional element to what you can do," said Kevin Hunt, the president of Jack W. Hunt and Associates Inc., a court-reporting company.

Technological developments have taken court reporting off of the written page and onto a computer, which opens up a myriad of new possibilities for creating and maintaining the record in litigation.

Still, said Sue Ann Simonin, the owner of Sue Ann Simonin Court Reporting, the central tool of the profession hasn't changed in over 100 years: the stenograph. Simonin said that while transcripts are now computerized, the keyboard of the stenograph is essentially the same as it was a century ago.

The latest innovation in the field, real-time reporting, is strides ahead of the 100-year-old model. It allows court reporters to create an almost instantaneous record of proceedings.

In the past, court reporters would type notes on paper, dictate them, send them to a typist, review the draft, submit changes, and receive a final version. With real-time translation, the text of the testimony is almost immediately visible on a computer screen after being entered by a court reporter using a stenograph.

Stephen Zinone, president of the New York State Court Reporters Association, said that instant translation has helped court reporters to be more efficient. "Attorneys and judges find it very helpful," he said.

Advancements in technology have even allowed court-reporting companies to create searchable PDFs of transcripts. And with real-time reporting, the transcripts can be searched for specific words and phrases as the testimony occurs.

With this real-time reporting technique, court reporters have taken their craft outside the courtroom. Trained court reporters can now create the real-time captioning for television programs.

"It's a vital service for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. When I started, this kind of work wasn't even on the radar screen," said Zinone.

While technology has created new fields for court reporters, it also threatens to make them obsolete. The increased use of digital tape recorders can cut out the need for a reporter in the courtroom. In Erie County, some Family Court judges opt to use a digital recorder. Zinone said such recorders are often used in non-jury cases, such as in small claims courts.

Some Utah courts have exiled the court reporter entirely, opting to work instead with digital tape recorders and typists to create a record for all proceedings.

But Hunt says that if he was convinced that this was the best way to maintain a record of court proceedings, he would integrate it into his own business. "It doesn't allow me to ensure that the quality is the same," he said.

Hunt says it's a question of harnessing the new technology, not fearing it. "Wise business people will take advantage of technology," he said. "We say, let's integrate it and take advantage of it."

Bob Kupzcyk, a court-reporting student and editor with the Amherst Bee, said that the development of electronic recorders wasn't a concern for him. After five years of training, "I'm not going to turn back now," he said.

"I'm going to take it one day at a time. Right now, my main concern is to get out of school, and then I'll worry about finding a job," said Kupzcyk.

Most court reporters agree: Electronic recorders cannot effectively replace the court reporter.

A major problem with electronic recorders, said Hunt, is that they cannot pause the proceedings to ask that a word or phrase be repeated for clarity, or ensure that only one person is speaking at a time.

Godfrey Read, a director at the Stenographic Institute School of Court Reporting, said transcripts produced with electronic recorders are "fraught with errors."

"The standard of a transcript from an audio recording is generally horrible," he said. In many cases, large parts of a proceeding are omitted and marked "inaudible" as recorded by digital devices.

But Alan Bartholomew, president of SoniClear, a company specializing in providing digital recordings, said digital recording can be accurate and effective if used correctly and accompanied by someone running the software and overseeing the proceedings.

However, "If you just have a court clerk flip a switch and turn on the recorder, the tape will be totally inaudible," he said. "That's a choice driven by cost considerations when you are satisfied with low-quality transcripts."

Zinone agreed that digital tape recorders make a poor substitute for the actual reporter.

"The court reporter is the best, most efficient and cost-effective way to produce a record," said Zinone. "The human element cannot be replaced."