On October 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas will hear oral argument in In re Patrick Hughey, No. 25-0463, a case that could significantly shape the future of deposition transcription in Texas. The Court will consider whether a trial court properly quashed depositions conducted through the AI platform Skribe.ai and struck a transcript produced without a certified shorthand reporter.
The argument is scheduled for 9 a.m. The Court also permitted an amicus to participate in oral argument on September 18, reflecting the importance of the issues presented.
At the center of the dispute is a critical question: Can technology produce a legally reliable deposition transcript without a certified human court reporter responsible for the record?
Our position is clear. Technology can improve access, efficiency, and convenience. It can assist a certified professional. But people, not AI, must remain responsible for guarding the official record. That is why law firms evaluating deposition strategy should understand how certified reporting, secure workflow, and compliant transcript handling work together. Our court reporting services remain built around accuracy, accountability, and professional oversight at every stage of the record.
The Case Raises a Fundamental Reporting Question
The underlying dispute began after Patrick Hughey noticed three depositions through Skribe.ai. The platform uses digital recording and speech-recognition technology to produce a written transcript, with human review incorporated into the process.
The trial court quashed the three planned depositions and barred use of a Skribe transcript from an earlier deposition. Importantly, the court did not exclude the video deposition itself. The ruling struck the written transcription and prevented its use as the official written record.
Hughey sought mandamus relief from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont. In May 2025, that court denied relief, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion. The appellate court also noted that the video could still be used and that a certified court reporter could prepare a transcript from the recording.
The case is now before the Supreme Court of Texas case docket, where the Court will consider how Texas statutes and procedural rules apply to AI-assisted deposition transcription.
Two Competing Interpretations of Texas Law
The dispute involves the relationship between Texas Government Code chapter 154 and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Reddico Construction argues that chapter 154 permits only a certified shorthand reporter, a party, counsel, or their employees to prepare a written deposition transcript. Under this interpretation, an AI platform operating without a certified shorthand reporter cannot create the official written transcript of a deposition.
The National Court Reporters Association supports that position in its amicus brief. NCRA argues that AI and automatic speech-recognition transcripts remain unreliable for official judicial records and that any substantial change to Texas’s reporting framework should come from the Legislature.
The opposing position relies on Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 199.1(c) and 203.6(a). The Institute for Constitutional AI Law’s brief argues that Texas rules authorize non-stenographic recording and allow a written transcription of that recording to be used to the same extent as a stenographic deposition. The Institute asks the Court to vacate the order striking the Skribe transcript.
That argument emphasizes access and cost. The question is whether a litigant should be required to obtain a certified transcript in every case, or only when a court finds good cause based on a specific reliability concern.
Technology Can Assist the Record, But It Cannot Be the Guardian
Certified court reporters have never opposed responsible innovation. Modern court reporting depends on advanced stenographic equipment, computer-aided transcription, secure digital delivery, real-time feeds, video integration, and remote deposition technology.
The distinction is accountability.
A certified court reporter is trained to recognize unclear speech, overlapping answers, inaudible testimony, incorrect terminology, and procedural irregularities. A reporter can request clarification, protect the integrity of the examination, identify speakers, administer the oath, manage the record, and certify the final transcript.
An automated system can generate text. It cannot independently accept professional responsibility for the legal consequences of an error.
That difference matters because a deposition transcript is not merely a convenience document. Attorneys use it to evaluate credibility, prepare motions, impeach witnesses, support summary judgment arguments, conduct cross-examination, and preserve issues for appeal. A single transcription error can alter the meaning of testimony, obscure an objection, change an answer, or create confusion about what actually occurred.
The National Court Reporters Association brief describes certified professionals as “guardians of the record.” That description is precise. Technology may assist the guardian. It should not replace the guardian.
Accuracy Requires More Than Speech Recognition
Speech-recognition tools have improved substantially. They can help organize recordings, create searchable drafts, and accelerate preliminary review. They may also support certified reporters by improving workflow and reducing administrative time.
However, a preliminary draft is not the same as a certified legal transcript.
The legal record must be accurate, complete, secure, attributable, and capable of meaningful verification. It must account for:
- Multiple speakers and overlapping dialogue
- Technical, medical, scientific, and industry-specific terminology
- Accents, background noise, and unclear audio
- Exhibits, objections, colloquy, and procedural instructions
- Corrections, errata, certifications, and chain of custody
- Confidentiality and secure handling of litigation materials
Human review after automated transcription does not automatically resolve every concern. The process must identify who reviewed the transcript, what standards applied, whether the reviewer had the necessary legal and subject-matter knowledge, and who bears responsibility when a material error remains.
This is why a certified court reporter remains essential even when advanced technology is part of the process.
The Workforce Challenge Strengthens the Case for Better Support, not Less Oversight
The court reporting profession is facing a well-documented workforce challenge. The stenographer workforce has declined by approximately 21% over the last decade, with a projected shortage of roughly 5,500 certified reporters by 2030.
That shortage creates real scheduling pressure for attorneys, law firms, legal departments, and courts. It also makes technology-assisted workflows increasingly valuable. But workforce constraints should encourage investment in certified professionals and responsible technology, not removal of the professional safeguards that make a transcript defensible.
Federal practice reflects the continuing importance of human certification. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 80 continues to address the evidentiary use of a court reporter’s certified transcript. Across jurisdictions, the principle remains consistent: official records require reliable procedures and accountable professionals.
The solution is not to choose between technology and court reporters. The stronger approach is to use technology under the supervision and responsibility of certified court reporting professionals.
Remote Depositions Still Require Certified Support
Remote proceedings make this issue especially relevant. Video conferencing and remote deposition platforms provide important flexibility for out-of-state witnesses, experts, distributed legal teams, and time-sensitive litigation. They reduce travel, improve scheduling, and allow participants to attend from secure locations.
But remote does not mean informal.
A remote deposition still requires reliable oath administration, clear audio and video, exhibit control, participant verification, secure recording, transcript accuracy, and dependable delivery. A certified court reporter coordinates these requirements while using technology to improve the experience.
At Hanna & Hanna Reporting, our remote deposition capabilities combine certified Texas court reporters with secure video conferencing, exhibit sharing, real-time text, redundant recording, and technical support. Whether a deposition is conducted in person, remotely, or in a hybrid format, the record must remain accurate and professionally managed.
Defensible Transcripts Protect the Case on Appeal
The value of a certified transcript becomes most apparent when testimony is challenged. Appellate courts, trial courts, and opposing counsel must be able to rely on the written record without uncertainty about who created it or whether important testimony was captured correctly.
A defensible transcript provides:
- Verbatim documentation of testimony
- Professional certification and accountability
- Consistent formatting and pagination
- Reliable handling of exhibits and annotations
- Secure delivery in appropriate formats
- A dependable foundation for review, motion practice, and appeal
Hanna & Hanna provides certified court reporting services backed by more than 30 years of family-owned Texas experience. Our reporters capture every word with precision, and our team delivers comprehensive transcript production in the formats legal professionals need, including PDF, hard copy upon request, and synchronized video-text options when applicable. Attorneys who want additional background on our standards, experience, and client-first approach can also review our About Hanna & Hanna page.
This is not a rejection of technology. It is the responsible use of technology.
The Human Standard Must Remain
The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re Hughey may clarify how Texas law treats AI-generated deposition transcripts and non-stenographic recording methods. Whatever the outcome, the central professional principle should remain unchanged: the official legal record must be protected by a qualified, accountable human professional.
AI can assist with speed and organization. It can support certified reporters and make litigation services more efficient. It cannot replace judgment, responsibility, impartiality, confidentiality, or certification.
For attorneys preparing a deposition, the safest standard remains straightforward: use advanced technology, but place the record in the hands of a certified court reporter.
That is how accuracy is protected. That is how professional standards are maintained. That is how the record remains defensible on appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an AI-generated transcript be used in a Texas deposition?
An AI-generated transcript may be useful as a draft or internal reference tool, but that does not make it the safest or most defensible official record. The core issue in Texas is whether a transcript created without a certified court reporter satisfies the legal standards that apply to deposition testimony. For attorneys, the practical takeaway is clear: if the transcript may be cited in motion practice, used for impeachment, reviewed on appeal, or relied on in settlement strategy, a certified court reporter remains the most reliable standard.
What does the Texas Supreme Court's decision in In re Hughey mean for my case?
The decision may clarify how Texas courts treat AI-assisted transcripts and non-stenographic deposition recording when a certified shorthand reporter is not responsible for the written record. Its impact will depend on the Court’s interpretation of existing statutes and procedural rules. For litigants and counsel, the safest approach while this issue develops is to continue using a certified court reporter so the record remains clear, professionally managed, and defensible.
Is a video recording of a deposition enough without a written transcript?
Not usually. A video recording can preserve testimony visually and capture demeanor, but attorneys still rely on a written transcript for citation, motion briefing, witness preparation, impeachment, appellate review, and efficient internal analysis. Video and text serve different purposes. The strongest record typically includes both a professionally managed video component and a certified written transcript.
Do remote depositions still require a certified court reporter?
Yes. A remote setting does not reduce the need for professional oversight. Remote proceedings still require oath administration, speaker identification, exhibit handling, accurate capture of testimony, secure workflow, and dependable transcript certification. Our remote deposition services are designed to provide that same level of reliability whether participants appear from one conference room or multiple locations.
How long does it take to get a certified transcript of a deposition?
Timing depends on the length of the deposition, the complexity of the testimony, turnaround requirements, and whether expedited delivery is needed. Standard and rush options may both be available depending on the matter. Our transcript production process is structured to provide accurate, professionally certified transcripts as efficiently as possible while preserving quality control and accountability.
Contact Hanna & Hanna Reporting to discuss certified court reporting, deposition transcription, remote deposition capabilities, and comprehensive litigation support for your next proceeding.