Supporters of the change maintain that adopting AI for court transcriptions will modernize the system, reduce costs and increases access for indigent defendants. Critics, however, contend the move jeopardizes accuracy, privacy and reliability, raising concerns about the potential mishandling of confidential information, errors in transcriptions and the loss of skilled stenographers from courtrooms.
In a November proposal, State Court Administrator Sally Holewa suggested amending Policy 206, which pertains to expenses for the preparation of transcripts by court staff. The proposed changes will get rid of per-page fees paid directly to court reporters and require that audio recordings be made for every proceeding. It also established a fee waiver program for transcripts provided to indigent defendants.
The proposal mandates audio recordings in courtrooms starting Jan. 1, 2026. Transcripts could then be generated using automated speech recognition (ASR), also known as artificial intelligence software, replacing certified stenographers, court reporters and transcribers.
No current staff would lose jobs, though positions may be reclassified under the Clerk of Court’s Office without pay cuts, Holewa said Jan. 22.
She opposed a proposed $2 per page price hike for transcripts requested by third parties. Current rates, unchanged since 2014, are $3.25 per page, plus 75 cents for paper copies. Expedited transcripts, delivered within 14 days, cost $4.25 per page, according to Kayla Richards, president of the North Dakota Court Reporters Association.
Before 1994, court reporters provided their own equipment, and per-page fees were intended to end by 1997 to allow time to recover those costs, Holewa said. Now, the state court system covers equipment and maintenance while also permitting court reporters to prepare transcripts for private clients during regular working hours.
Holewa’s letter estimates the proposed fee increase could cost the court system, Judicial Conduct Commission, and Indigent Defense Commission about $45,000 annually, as transcripts are often requested by staff attorneys. Instead, she suggests eliminating per-page fees for state-paid reporters while keeping the 75-cent fee for paper copies.
Opposition to Holewa’s proposed amendments includes members of the state’s court reporters association, the National Court Reporters Association, attorneys at a Fargo law firm, and all judges in the South Central, East Central, and Southeast Judicial Districts.
In a letter, the judges cited risks of inaccuracies, exposure of confidential information typically redacted by court reporters, and disruptions if recording systems fail, as seen in Bismarck and Mandan on Nov. 27, 2024.
“When the servers and recording system were down for hours, we were still able to continue to hold hearings with the assistance of our reporters, thereby guaranteeing that those individuals who found themselves before the court were heard without delay,” the South Central Judicial District judges’ letter states.
“It is premature to amend the policy to require an inferior digital record when we still have dedicated, long-term employees who continue to create reliable, high-quality written transcripts.”
During the Jan. 22 meeting, Justice Douglas Barr asked Holewa whether the official record would become the audio recording or the transcript prepared from it.
Holewa said the transcript would remain the official record in most cases unless the court further amended its rules.
“Moving to a private commercial vendor, as several states have already done, would simplify and expedite transcript preparation,” Holewa’s proposal states.
Her proposal cites Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Utah, noting those states have used this approach for years without issue.
“It is not part of the proposed change to the policy but the court already uses the digital audio as the official record on appeal for termination of parental rights cases and other expedited proceedings,” Holewa said in an email to the Tribune. “If the court would go that way for other types of appeals, it would just be an extension of an existing practice.”
The North Dakota Court Reporters Association, joined by the Serkland Law Firm in Fargo, has opposed the proposed changes, with letters signed by every district court judge in the East Central, Southeast and South Central Judicial Districts sent to the rulemaking committee.
Included in the opposition were sample transcripts from a Nov. 14, 2024, court proceeding in Bismarck, one generated by a certified court reporter and the other by ASR using an outside vendor.
Opponents argued that relying solely on audio recordings for transcripts raises accuracy concerns. Richards cited a state-sponsored pilot project from a few years ago that aimed for 93% accuracy.
“They are not even close to being accurate,” she said. “They don’t identify speakers. Right now, I think the biggest thing is like language barriers, so we get a lot of people with heavy accents.”
Concerns have been raised about the shift toward using AI technology.
Critics, including the Minnesota Association of Verbatim Reporters and Captioners, have cited a Stanford University study showing ASR error rates of 19% — and up to 35% for Black speakers — along with potential confidentiality risks. These concerns mirror those raised by North Dakota stenographers, who worry ASR platforms cannot ensure accuracy or protect sensitive information such as victim names and juvenile records.
Holewa noted that digital recording systems have been used in North Dakota courts for over 20 years, with transcripts often outsourced to vendors who follow strict confidentiality rules. While ASR isn’t yet ready to replace official court records, Holewa said advancements are being monitored closely.
For now, human stenographers and court reporters will continue preparing transcripts, but future transitions may involve integrating such duties into the Clerk of Court’s Office.
© 2025 The Bismarck Tribune (Bismarck, N.D.). Visit www.bismarcktribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
