Texas high court toys with AI transcripts for witness depositions

Texas Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to allow AI-generated transcripts for witness depositions where verified video recordings can act as "escape hatches" to ensure accuracy.AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over whether an individual should be allowed to submit an AI-generated transcript of a deposition as evidence.The case concerns a Montgomery County man’s wrongful termination claim against his former employer. But the question before the state’s high court arises not from the termination, but from the man’s decision to use an AI-generated transcript of his deposition of his employer’s representative.The trial court in Montgomery County struck the AI-generated transcript the employee submitted from the record back in April 2025 because the transcript was not prepared by a certified shorthand reporter. In their unsigned denial of his appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Ninth District reaffirmed that the issue was not with the content of the deposition or the use of the deposition as evidence, but merely with the use of an uncertified, AI-generated written transcript.However, the company did not object to the use of the transcription software at the time of the deposition, only asking the trial court to strike it several weeks later.Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock noted it would have just been cheaper for the employee’s counsel to pay for the certified reporter, or it would have been cheaper for the company’s counsel to just let the depositions happen this way. “Why are we here?” he asked.Justice Jane Bland pressed Bradley Snead, an attorney for the employee’s side from Houston-based Wright Close, on whether the AI-generated transcript was true and correct. Snead argued that because the deposition’s video recording is certified, the transcript does not have to be.Snead said while there are many legitimate concerns in the legal system of AI-generated hallucinations for things like citations of fake cases, that is not an issue in this case.But Bland pushed back. “On the one hand, you seem to say it’s not required to be certified," she said. “But you want to use it in the same way where a live human has attested to the reliability of the thing, the video recording or transcript. Where are we going to get that peace, of a human being standing behind the transcribed product?”“Should we regulate this practice? I think most of these companies would welcome the regulation, but that’s a different question," Snead responded. “If the court wants to create more rules, they can. But under the current rules, you are allowed to do this.”The employer’s attorney, Stephanie L. Bryant of Houston-based The Bays Firm, urged the court to consider what allowing AI-based transcripts would open up in the courts.“That’s why we’re here, because the use of these AI programs to generate written transcripts and do these depositions this cheaply is going to affect litigation. It’s going to exponentially increase discovery costs.”Justice J. Brett Busby pressed Bryant on her assertion of increased costs for defendants and reduced costs for plaintiffs. “Wouldn’t our proportionality rules take care of that?”Bryant insisted she had no issue with litigants or attorneys using their own in-house AI software, but that using a third-party AI transcription platform like the employee did in this case raises substantial security and confidentiality questions, and that as such, it would not be allowed under current Texas rules of procedure.Justice Kyle Hawkins then echoed the arguments of the appeals court. “If they submit the AI transcript, you have the chance to say, ‘That’s wrong, there’s an error in the transcript, and we’ve got the video and we can just watch that.’ I don’t see what the issue is.” He also questioned why they should set aside the use of “this efficient, cost-effective tool,” as he described the AI transcription platform.Justice Evan Young emphasized in cases where the only record is the court stenographer, that has to be certified, but having the video record means the information can be verified.“We have all of these escape hatches,” Young continued. “We have the actual recording. We have the ability of the judge to say ‘Okay, there’s just too much about this. I want a certified shorthand reporter to do this.’ We have lots of techniques, if accuracy is really what the goal is. I’m open to the argument that has nothing to do with it. But if that’s what you’re defending, it seems like that doesn’t really work out.”“Yes, accuracy is the ultimate goal,” Bryant replied. “And the problem here is that when you have a transcript that has all the auspices of formality, it looks like a formal deposition transcript.”“So, object to it,” Young retorted. “Say to the judge, ‘This is ridiculous, there’s all these errors’ — you mentioned a few — ‘judge, this is a situation which under the rules, good cause exists to demand this be thrown in the garbage and [that] we have one by a certified reporter.”Eight of the nine justices heard the arguments Tuesday, with Justice John Devine absent.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads