AI Can't Replace Human Transcribers, Even If Companies Keep Pretending It Can
There is a growing belief in the legal transcription industry that AI has made human transcribers unnecessary. That belief is wrong
AI cannot replace human transcribers in legal work. What has changed is how companies describe the job and how little they are willing to pay for it. By relabeling transcription as “proofreading” or “scoping,” companies are trying to force AI into a role it cannot perform, while relying on humans to fix what AI gets wrong.
On paper, this looks efficient. In reality, it creates serious problems.
When AI is Used in Place of Humans, Two Things Happen
First, companies want to pay less. They claim AI has done the heavy lifting. It hasn’t. But because they use titles like “proofreader” and “scopist,” they believe they are justified in paying much less. I have seen companies paying as little as 75 cents per page. That is not sustainable.
For actual proofreading work, 75 cents per page can be a fair rate. But when it takes as long or longer to correct AI output as it does to transcribe audio from scratch, that rate becomes below poverty wages. You cannot expect someone to work just as hard as a transcriber while you pay them a fraction of what transcription is worth.
You get what you pay for.
Second, legal cases affect real lives. This is not a game for machines. These are real plaintiffs and defendants. Some might be facing incarceration or worse. If AI misses a crucial yes and turns it into a no, a defendant’s life could be ruined. If a witness account is transcribed incorrectly, a victim could lose justice or safety. The consequences are too big to rely on a system that usually does not get it right.
Proofreading AI is Not Easier Work
Legal transcription is not typing. It is not formatting. It is not running spellcheck.
It is interpretation.
AI regularly:
- Mishears legal terminology
- Butchers English words with foreign roots
- Drops or mangles foreign language testimony
- Confuses speakers
- Inserts punctuation that changes meaning
- Rewrites testimony into something that sounds close, but is legally wrong
Fixing these kinds of mistakes is not quick. It requires constant focus and judgment. The errors repeat and cluster, but they are rarely identical. You could have motion in limine transcribed by AI as "motion in lemonade" on one page, and "motion in lemony" on another page. You cannot skim past them.
I have spent more time fixing AI generated transcripts than I would have spent transcribing the same audio from scratch. Proofreading AI is not easier work. It is harder.
The Economics Still Do Not Work
When companies treat transcription as proofreading, pay goes down. Accuracy expectations stay the same.
I have seen files that paid less than a basic meal. I have seen AI cleanup take longer than full transcription. I have seen companies demand professional accuracy at entry level rates.
This is not innovation. It is a labor model built on burnout and turnover.
New professionals get discouraged and leave the industry quickly. Experienced professionals walk away. Companies accept the turnover because someone new is always willing to try before they understand the math.
You cannot pay someone less and expect them to work as hard to protect lives and legal records as someone who is paid fairly. That is not realistic.
The quality of the record reflects what you are willing to pay for it.
“90 Percent Accurate” Means Nothing in Legal Work
Accuracy is not an average.
If AI drops a negation, misstates a motion, confuses speakers, or rewrites testimony into something almost right, that is not acceptable. That is a problem in the official record.
Ask someone who actually does this work how often AI mangles basic legal language. Not obscure terms. Basic, everyday legal language.
For example:
- "motion in limine" routinely turns into nonsense like "motion in lemony"
- "affidavit" is frequently misheard as phrases like "after David"
- case citations are misnumbered, incomplete, or fabricated
- technical or expert testimony is flattened, simplified, or rewritten incorrectly
Then ask how often those same errors appear repeatedly throughout a transcript.
That is not a one-off error. That is a pattern. And in legal work, patterned errors are dangerous.
Digital Recording Is Not the Problem
This is where the conversation often goes sideways, so it needs to be said clearly.
Digital recording itself is not unreliable. Courts have successfully used digital audio and video recording for years. In many settings, it works alongside stenographers, scopists, proofreaders, and transcribers as part of a workflow.
The problem is not digital technology.
The problem is treating AI output as if it were a finished record, and then paying humans as if they are only doing light review instead of full transcription.
When qualified professionals are given proper time, authority, and compensation, digital transcription works. Courts already know this. That is why it remains a core part of modern court operations.
What does not work is pretending AI can replace human judgment while relying on humans to quietly fix the damage.
For a broader look at how stenography, digital recording, and transcription have evolved, see Legacy Transcript’s article
From Stenography to Digital: A Journey Through the Evolution of Legal Transcription.
Courts Carry the Risk
This is not just about pay.
Bad transcripts:
- Create appeal issues
- Complicate post-conviction relief
- Introduce ambiguity into the record
- Increase the cost of correcting mistakes later
Transcripts are the official record. Accuracy is not optional.
If AI were capable of replacing human transcription, courts would already rely on it without oversight. They do not, and there are good reasons for that.
AI Is a Tool, Not a Substitute
AI can be useful in limited ways. It can help with workflow support, rough indexing, and other non-substantive tasks.
What it cannot do is replace skilled human transcription. Changing the job title does not change the work. Lowering pay does not change the level of judgment required.
This work still depends on experience, context, and language fluency.
The Bottom Line
AI cannot replace human transcribers.
Companies are pretending it can by relabeling the work and ignoring reality.
The consequences will not fall on the companies pushing these models. They will fall on courts, attorneys, and clients who assume the record is accurate when it is not. They will fall on the reputations of the "proofreaders" or "scopists" who are required to certify transcripts as accurate, even when they are paid too little and given too little time to safely correct AI errors.
Digital transcription is not failing. Human expertise is being undervalued.
If accuracy matters, people matter.
