AI and Court Reporting: A 50-State Resource Directory

How are courts across the United States responding to artificial intelligence?

Artificial intelligence is changing how information is recorded, transcribed, edited, and reviewed. In the legal profession, these developments raise important questions about accuracy, confidentiality, professional responsibility, and the integrity of the official court record.

For court reporters, scopists, transcription professionals, and anyone considering a career in legal transcription, understanding how courts approach AI is becoming increasingly important.

However, there is no single nationwide policy governing every use of artificial intelligence in court reporting. Requirements vary by state, jurisdiction, court, and intended use. Some courts have issued specific orders or policies addressing AI, while others rely on existing court reporting regulations, confidentiality requirements, and professional standards.

Explore Court Reporting and AI Resources by State

This directory provides access to official judicial websites, court rules, administrative orders, and AI-related guidance from all 50 states.

Select a state below to explore available resources.

Where specific AI-related policies are available, links are provided to the relevant official materials. For states without identified AI-specific guidance, links to general judicial resources are included to help readers locate current information.

Our goal is to make reliable information easier to find—not to interpret the law or replace official guidance.

Important Information and Disclaimer

This directory is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or a determination of whether a particular technology or practice is permitted in any jurisdiction.

The inclusion of a state or resource does not indicate that the state has enacted an AI-specific law or restriction. Court rules, administrative orders, and policies may change, and individual courts may impose additional requirements.

Although reasonable efforts are made to identify useful official resources, DaisyWorksFromHome.com does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, availability, or continued applicability of linked information.

Readers should verify current requirements directly with the appropriate court, regulatory authority, or qualified legal professional before relying on any information presented.

Published: October 2026

Last reviewed: October 2026

If this page is a good resource for you and it needs an update, please do reach out as I know I won’t be able to update all 50 states every day of the week! Thank you!

Interested in a Career Behind the Transcript?

As artificial intelligence changes court reporting, skilled scopists continue to play an important role in preparing accurate transcripts. If you’re curious about this specialized work-from-home career, explore the training offered by Internet Scoping School →

ALABAMA

AI-Related Court Policy

As of October 2026, no statewide Alabama judicial rule specifically prohibiting or authorizing AI-assisted court transcription or scoping was identified in the official sources reviewed.

Alabama has established policies addressing the responsible use of artificial intelligence in state government. However, these policies primarily concern executive-branch agencies and should not be interpreted as rules governing court reporters or scopists.

Existing court-reporting standards continue to emphasize transcript accuracy, confidentiality, professional competence, and accountability.

Court Reporting Requirements

Alabama regulates court reporters through the Alabama Board of Court Reporting under Title 34, Chapter 8B of the Alabama Code.

Under Alabama Administrative Code Rule 257-X-4-.01, licensed court reporters must:

Maintain accuracy, fairness, and impartiality.
Protect confidential information entrusted to them.
Preserve reporting notes and recordings as required.
Certify transcripts prepared personally or under their direct supervision.
Maintain professional competence and satisfy continuing education requirements.

Alabama generally requires court reporters to obtain state licensure through prescribed qualifications and examination procedures. Licensed reporters are also subject to continuing education requirements.

These professional standards do not, by themselves, establish a blanket prohibition on the use of AI tools in transcript preparation.

Official Sources

ALASKA

AI-Related Court Policy

The Alaska Court System adopted a statewide artificial intelligence policy for judicial officers and court employees in spring 2025, with revisions following later that year.

The policy permits careful use of AI and generative AI while emphasizing human responsibility, accuracy, and confidentiality.

Key requirements include:

AI must not replace human judgment or professional accountability.
AI-generated information must be reviewed for accuracy, completeness, errors, and potential bias.
Legal citations and factual information must be independently verified.
Confidential information and personally identifiable information must not be entered into AI systems.

The Alaska Court System has also reported that it is exploring AI-assisted transcription of digital audio recordings from court hearings and trials.

These policies address court personnel and court operations. They do not establish a general statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcription.

Court Reporting Requirements

Alaska primarily uses electronic recording equipment to create the official record of court proceedings.

Alaska Rules of Administration, Rule 35 establishes requirements for electronic recording, including monitoring recording quality and maintaining accurate log notes.

An important qualification: although Rule 35 discusses certified recording operators, the court has suspended that particular certification requirement. The responsibility to produce a clear, understandable record remains in effect.

Rule 36 governs transcript preparation and certification:

Official transcripts must comply with standards established by the court system.
Each transcript must be certified by the person who prepared it.
Transcribers may receive the official recording, log notes, and other necessary materials.
Transcript preparation must follow the court system’s prescribed procedures.

The Alaska Court System also publishes contractor standards addressing transcript formatting, accuracy, correction of errors, and handling confidential information.

These requirements reinforce the importance of careful human review, even as transcription technology develops.

Official Sources

ARIZONA

AI-Related Court Policy

Arizona has established statewide judicial guidance addressing the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence.

Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 1-509, adopted in 2024, establishes safeguards for the use of generative AI and large language models within the judicial branch.

In August 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to impose a temporary ban on judges’ use of generative AI. Instead, the Court continued its controlled approach, emphasizing that:

AI must not replace judicial decision-making.
Judges may use court-approved AI tools for appropriate purposes.
Human oversight and accountability remain essential.
AI tools must be evaluated for risks, including accuracy, security, and confidentiality.

The Court has also directed its AI Steering Committee to continue developing recommendations for responsible judicial AI use.

These policies primarily concern judges, court employees, and judicial operations. They do not establish a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Arizona regulates court reporters through its Certified Reporters Program, governed by Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 32, Chapter 40, and Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-206.

Key requirements include:

Court reporters working in Arizona state courts must hold the appropriate certification.
Certified reporters are responsible for preparing accurate, verbatim records of proceedings.
Transcripts must follow prescribed formatting and certification requirements.
Certified reporters must comply with applicable professional conduct standards and continuing education requirements.
Arizona recognizes stenographic and voice-writing methods of court reporting.

Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-206 establishes requirements for certified reporters, including transcript preparation, professional responsibilities, and certification.

Additional judicial administration provisions address digital recording and transcript procedures.

These rules establish professional responsibilities for the official court record but do not, by themselves, prohibit all AI-assisted transcript preparation.

Official Sources

ARKANSAS

AI-Related Court Policy

On June 5, 2025, the Arkansas Supreme Court published proposed Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence, addressing the growing use of generative AI in the state’s judicial system.

The proposal focuses initially on protecting confidential court data when artificial intelligence tools are used.

The Court established a committee to study AI applications and develop recommendations as the technology evolves. The proposed order was released for public comment through August 1, 2025.

Important distinction: The published 2025 document is a proposed administrative order. Its final adoption and effective status have not been independently confirmed. It should not be treated as an enforceable statewide AI restriction without further verification.

Arkansas has not been shown by these sources to impose a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Court reporters in Arkansas are regulated by the Arkansas Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners, under the authority of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Arkansas establishes professional requirements through its certification rules, board regulations, and judicial administrative orders.

Key provisions include:

Certification: Court reporters must meet the applicable certification requirements, including examination and professional qualifications.
Transcript accuracy: Certification examinations include transcription accuracy standards and knowledge of transcript preparation rules.
Official court records: Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 4 governs the verbatim record of court proceedings.
Electronic recording: Courts may use authorized electronic recording systems under specified procedures.
Official transcripts: When transcripts are prepared from authorized audio recordings, the designated official court reporter is responsible for their preparation and certification.
Professional conduct: Certified reporters are subject to the Board’s regulations governing professional responsibilities and conduct.

These requirements emphasize the importance of accurate, properly prepared, and certified court records, regardless of the recording technology used.

Official Sources

CALIFORNIA

AI-Related Court Policy

California adopted Rule 10.430 of the California Rules of Court, effective September 1, 2025, establishing requirements for generative artificial intelligence use policies within the judicial branch.

Under this rule, courts that permit judicial officers or court staff to use generative AI were required to adopt policies by December 15, 2025.

Required safeguards include:

Confidentiality: Prohibiting the entry of confidential, personally identifying, or other nonpublic information into public generative AI systems.
Accuracy: Requiring reasonable steps to verify AI-generated material and correct erroneous or fabricated information.
Human accountability: Maintaining compliance with applicable laws, professional standards, and ethical obligations.
Disclosure: Requiring identification of AI use when a final work provided to the public consists entirely of generative AI output.

Courts may adopt stricter restrictions or prohibit generative AI entirely.

California also adopted Standard 10.80, providing guidance for judicial officers using generative AI in their adjudicative work.

These provisions primarily govern judicial operations. They do not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

California regulates certified shorthand reporters through the Court Reporters Board of California, under the Business and Professions Code, beginning with Section 8000, and Title 16, Division 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

Important requirements include:

Licensure: Individuals practicing as certified shorthand reporters must meet state licensing requirements, including examinations and other eligibility criteria.
Transcript accuracy: California Code of Regulations § 2403 defines shorthand reporting to include creating a verbatim record and accurately transcribing it.
Certification: Reporters must certify transcripts as correctly reported and transcribed, as applicable to the proceeding.
Record preservation: Reporters must retain stenographic notes and records for the periods required by law.
Professional standards: Licensed reporters must comply with applicable standards governing their reporting practice.
Transcript formatting: Official transcripts must meet applicable state formatting requirements.

California recognizes voice writing within its court-reporting regulatory framework.

These requirements reinforce the importance of accurate transcript preparation and certification, regardless of the software used in the editing process.

Official Sources

COLORADO

AI-Related Court Policy

The Colorado Supreme Court established a Legal Technology Advisory Committee in 2025 to develop guidance on artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies used in the legal system.

The committee’s work addresses attorneys, judges, legal professionals, and individuals interacting with Colorado courts. Its priorities include protecting confidential information, ensuring accuracy, maintaining professional competence, and promoting responsible technology use.

In January 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court approved amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct addressing generative AI. These reinforce attorneys’ existing duties of competence, independent judgment, and responsible use of technology.

Colorado has not been shown by these authorities to impose a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Colorado’s Chief Justice Directive 05-03, Court Reporters/Recorders, establishes procedures for creating and preparing official court records.

Important provisions include:

Recording methods: Colorado courts use both court reporters and authorized electronic recording systems.
Transcript preparation: Official transcripts must comply with the standards and procedures established by the Judicial Branch.
Authorized transcription: The directive identifies who may prepare transcripts from official court recordings.
Accuracy and certification: Transcript preparation must follow applicable requirements for producing reliable official records.
Record custody: Court reporting notes and electronic recordings are subject to rules governing ownership, preservation, and access.
Delivery requirements: The directive establishes procedures for transcript requests, deadlines, and related fees.

The directive was amended effective July 1, 2023, and remains an important source for Colorado court reporting and transcription requirements.

These standards govern official court records but do not themselves establish a general prohibition on AI-assisted transcript editing.

Official Sources

CONNECTICUT

AI-Related Court Policy

Connecticut has established a formal framework governing artificial intelligence within its Judicial Branch.

Connecticut General Statutes § 51-10e requires the Judicial Branch to establish policies for the responsible development and use of AI systems, including assessments addressing discrimination, fairness, accountability, and transparency.

The Judicial Branch published its Responsible AI Framework, dated February 1, 2024. Its requirements include:

Prior approval: Judicial Branch employees must obtain supervisory approval before using large language models for official work.
Confidentiality: Nonpublic information, privileged communications, personally identifying information, and protected health information must not be entered into these systems.
Accuracy: AI-generated information must be reviewed for accuracy, reliability, and completeness.
Human responsibility: Employees remain accountable for their work, including material produced with AI assistance.
Disclosure: AI assistance must be acknowledged when required by law.

Connecticut also established a Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System to evaluate the technology’s implications for court operations, professional responsibilities, and access to justice.

These policies govern Judicial Branch activities. They do not establish a general prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing by private professionals.

Court Reporting Requirements

Connecticut’s official court reporting procedures are governed primarily by Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 874, particularly §§ 51-60, 51-61, and 51-74.

Important requirements include:

Official court records: Court proceedings are recorded by official court reporters or court recording monitors.
Digital recording: Section 51-74 requires approved digital recording equipment for proceedings that must be officially recorded.
Accuracy: Official court reporters are sworn to perform their duties faithfully and make accurate records of proceedings.
Transcript preparation: Section 51-61 governs requests for official transcripts and restricts disclosure of transcripts from proceedings closed to the public.
Transcript formatting: Connecticut uses a standardized transcript format, generally consisting of 27 double-spaced lines per page with 60 character spaces per line.
Professional responsibility: Official court reporters and recording monitors must follow Judicial Branch procedures for transcript preparation and handling.

Connecticut previously regulated private shorthand reporters under Chapter 400l, but those licensing provisions were repealed effective January 1, 2018. They should not be presented as current licensing requirements.

These court-reporting rules govern the creation and preparation of official court records but do not establish a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted transcription.

Official Sources

DELAWARE

AI-Related Court Policy

On October 21, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted an Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel.

The policy governs AI use by judges, judicial employees, law clerks, and other authorized court personnel performing official duties.

Its principal requirements include:

Human accountability: Court personnel remain responsible for the accuracy of work produced with AI assistance.
Professional judgment: AI may assist with tasks but cannot replace judicial or professional decision-making.
Approved technology: Personnel must follow restrictions governing approved and unapproved AI tools.
Confidentiality: Nonpublic information may not be entered into unapproved generative AI systems.
Training: Personnel should understand the capabilities and limitations of approved AI tools before using them.
Compliance: AI use must comply with applicable laws and Judicial Branch policies.

This policy applies to judicial officers and court personnel, not automatically to independent scopists or private transcription professionals.

It does not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Delaware regulates court reporters through the Board on Certified Court Reporters, established by the Delaware Supreme Court under Amended Administrative Directive No. 132.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Court reporters handling proceedings within the scope of the directive generally must hold valid Delaware certification.
Transcript supervision: Unless a court finds special circumstances, transcripts used in Delaware courts must be reported and transcribed by a certified court reporter or transcribed under that reporter’s supervision.
Professional qualifications: The certification program recognizes the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) credential or an approved equivalent.
Professional accountability: Certified reporters are subject to standards governing competency, conduct, and disciplinary oversight.
Official transcripts: Delaware’s Superior Court employs official court reporters to record proceedings and prepare certified verbatim transcripts.
Electronic recording: The Court of Common Pleas uses digital recording systems, while Family Court proceedings are recorded digitally.

Of particular interest to scopists: Delaware expressly permits certain transcript preparation under the supervision of a certified court reporter. This provision does not independently authorize any particular AI technology, but it recognizes supervised transcription as part of the official court-reporting process.

Official Sources

FLORIDA

AI-Related Court Policy

Florida has adopted statewide requirements addressing the accuracy of legal authorities cited in court filings, including those produced using generative artificial intelligence.

On May 28, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration. The amendment requires the person signing a court filing to represent that the legal authorities cited actually exist and are accurately cited. Courts may impose sanctions for violations.

The Supreme Court also issued Administrative Order AOSC26-12, establishing a uniform statewide approach rather than differing local AI disclosure and certification requirements.

Separately, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, issued January 19, 2024, advises that lawyers may use generative AI while maintaining their professional obligations. Important considerations include:

Confidentiality: Protecting client information when using third-party AI systems.
Accuracy: Independently reviewing and verifying AI-generated work.
Professional responsibility: Retaining human judgment and accountability.
Technology competence: Understanding the risks and limitations of AI tools.

The Bar opinion is advisory rather than binding.

These authorities concern court filings and attorneys’ professional responsibilities. They do not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Florida regulates court reporting and official transcript production through Rule 2.535 of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, together with statewide court-reporting standards.

Florida recognizes several methods of recording proceedings, including stenographic reporting, computer-aided transcription, and digital audio recording.

Important requirements include:

Approved personnel: Court-funded reporting and transcription services must be performed by court-approved reporters or transcriptionists meeting applicable qualifications.
Official records: Transcripts must be prepared according to applicable court rules and procedures.
Accuracy and certification: Court reporting protocols must address transcript certification and correctness.
Confidentiality: Procedures must prevent improper transcription or disclosure of off-the-record discussions, attorney-client communications, and other protected information.
Electronic recording: Judicial circuits may use authorized digital recording systems and must establish procedures for managing recordings and transcript production.
Local procedures: Chief judges and judicial circuits establish additional requirements consistent with statewide standards.

Florida’s rules distinguish between the technologies used to record proceedings and the responsibilities involved in preparing an accurate official transcript.

They do not independently authorize every AI transcription tool or prohibit all AI-assisted transcript editing.

Official Sources

GEORGIA

AI-Related Court Policy

In August 2024, the Supreme Court of Georgia established an Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts to examine how generative AI could affect judicial proceedings, court administration, and public confidence in the legal system.

The committee completed its final report in June 2025 and presented recommendations to the Judicial Council in August 2025.

Its recommendations included:

Judicial oversight: Maintaining human responsibility for judicial decisions and court operations.
Accuracy and reliability: Addressing the risks of inaccurate or fabricated AI-generated information.
Confidentiality: Evaluating the privacy and security risks associated with AI systems.
Access to justice: Exploring ways technology could improve court services.
Ongoing governance: Establishing a permanent body to oversee AI-related developments and recommend appropriate safeguards.

In 2026, the Judicial Council’s technology work continued through an AI-focused subcommittee examining court filings, evidence, hearings, and possible model standing orders.

Important distinction: Committee reports and recommendations are not automatically binding court rules. The official sources reviewed do not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Georgia regulates court reporters through the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia, under the Georgia Court Reporting Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 15-14-20 through 15-14-35.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Individuals practicing verbatim court reporting must satisfy applicable Georgia certification requirements.
Professional competence: Certified reporters must maintain the skills necessary to produce accurate transcripts.
Transcript accuracy: Reporters must accept assignments appropriate to their qualifications and follow applicable transcript-formatting requirements.
Confidentiality and impartiality: Reporters must comply with the Board’s professional ethics standards.
Record preservation: Reporting notes and recordings must be retained according to applicable statutes, court orders, and retention requirements.
Continuing education: Certified reporters are subject to professional development requirements.

Digital recording: Effective January 1, 2026, O.C.G.A. § 15-7-47 expressly permits Georgia state courts to make available a certified court reporter, an authorized digital recording system, or both, subject to applicable court rules and judicial discretion.

The use of digital recording technology does not, by itself, establish permission to use generative AI for transcript preparation.

Official Sources

HAWAII

AI-Related Court Policy

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court established its Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts on April 16, 2024, to examine the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence in the judicial system.

The committee submitted its final report on December 15, 2025, addressing responsible AI use in court operations and the legal profession.

The report considers several important issues:

Accuracy and reliability: Risks involving incorrect, misleading, or fabricated AI-generated information.
Confidentiality: Protection of sensitive court information and personal data.
Human oversight: The importance of maintaining professional responsibility and judicial decision-making.
Court technology: Potential uses of AI to improve administrative efficiency, including transcription-related applications.
Training and governance: Recommendations for developing policies, safeguards, and education as AI technology evolves.

Important distinction: The committee’s report contains findings and recommendations; it is not itself a binding statewide AI rule.

The reviewed sources do not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Hawaii regulates court reporting through the Rules Governing Court Reporting in the State of Hawaiʻi, administered by the Hawaiʻi Board of Certified Shorthand Reporters.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Rule 2 generally requires individuals performing verbatim reporting of court proceedings or depositions for use in Hawaii courts to hold a Hawaii Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) certificate, subject to applicable exceptions.
Transcript certification: Transcripts must be signed and certified as true and correct by the responsible certified reporter, unless an applicable exemption or court authorization applies.
Professional qualifications: Rule 9 establishes certification qualifications, examination requirements, and renewal procedures.
Electronic recording: Hawaii courts may preserve proceedings through authorized recording systems when a court reporter is unavailable.
Transcript preparation: The Hawaiʻi Court Records Rules permit qualified private reporters or transcription providers to prepare transcripts of recorded proceedings under specified conditions.
Confidentiality: Transcripts of confidential proceedings cannot be released without the required court authorization or another lawful basis.

Significant 2026 developments:

In January 2026, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court adopted Hawaiʻi Court Records Rule 15, expanding procedures for obtaining transcripts when an official court reporter is unavailable.

Amendments to the court-reporting rules, including Rule 18, also address circumstances in which private transcription providers or court-authorized individuals may prepare transcripts.

These changes recognize authorized transcription services beyond traditional in-person stenographic reporting while preserving requirements for qualification, accuracy, certification, and confidentiality.

They do not independently authorize unrestricted use of AI transcription systems.

Official Sources

IDAHO

AI-Related Court Policy

On October 19, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court announced the release of its AI Governance Implementation Report, describing efforts to develop guidance for responsible artificial intelligence use in Idaho’s courts.

The report follows a year of work by judges, attorneys, court administrators, technology professionals, and the National Center for State Courts.

The Idaho Supreme Court has adopted guiding principles emphasizing:

Human oversight: AI must not replace judicial decision-making or professional judgment.
Accountability: Court personnel remain responsible for work performed with AI assistance.
Transparency: Judicial AI use must support public confidence and ethical court operations.
Responsible implementation: AI tools should be evaluated before adoption, with attention to their appropriate uses and limitations.

The report also recommends continued judicial oversight through a court committee focused on AI.

Important distinction: The report does not require Idaho courts to adopt AI tools or establish a general prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing. Additional policies remain subject to decisions by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Court Reporting Requirements

Idaho regulates certified shorthand reporters under the Idaho Certified Shorthand Reporters Act, Idaho Code Title 54, Chapter 31, and its court administrative rules.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Idaho Court Administrative Rule 21 generally requires appointed district court reporters to hold regular certification as shorthand reporters, subject to limited temporary appointments.
Electronic recording: Idaho Court Administrative Rule 27 provides procedures for electronically recording court proceedings, maintaining recording logs, and preserving official records.
Official transcripts: Under Rule 27, a certified stenographic transcript is the official transcript when proceedings were reported stenographically.
Supervised transcription: When proceedings were electronically recorded, an official transcript may be prepared by a district court reporter or a transcriber working under the control or supervision of the district court clerk, with the required certificate of accuracy.
Transcript formatting: Idaho Appellate Rule 26 establishes requirements for transcript layout, contents, and certification.
Transcript accuracy: The reporter or authorized transcriber must certify that the transcript accurately represents the proceedings to the best of their ability.

Idaho expressly distinguishes an official certified transcript from a realtime transcript or electronic recording, neither of which automatically qualifies as an official transcript.

These rules establish accountability for official court records without independently authorizing or prohibiting particular AI transcription tools.

Official Sources

ILLINOIS

AI-Related Court Policy

On December 18, 2024, the Illinois Supreme Court announced a statewide policy on artificial intelligence in the courts, following recommendations from the Illinois Judicial Conference’s AI Task Force.

The policy authorizes appropriate AI use by judges, attorneys, court staff, and litigants, provided it complies with existing legal and ethical requirements.

Its principal safeguards include:

Accuracy: AI-generated material must be carefully reviewed before submission in court proceedings.
Human accountability: Judges, attorneys, and other users remain responsible for their final work products.
Confidentiality and ethics: AI use must comply with applicable professional obligations and protections for sensitive information.
Reliability: Fabricated legal authorities, misleading AI-generated content, and material that undermines judicial fairness are unacceptable.
Professional competence: Users must understand the capabilities and limitations of the AI systems they employ.

The Supreme Court determined that existing professional and judicial conduct rules provide a framework for regulating AI use, while acknowledging that policies may need to evolve.

Important distinction: Illinois permits responsible AI use under its judicial policy. The policy does not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Illinois regulates certified shorthand reporters through the Illinois Certified Shorthand Reporters Act of 1984 (225 ILCS 415) and its implementing regulations, 68 Illinois Administrative Code Part 1200.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Individuals practicing shorthand reporting must satisfy applicable state certification and licensing requirements.
Protected professional titles: Only properly certified individuals may use the titles “Certified Shorthand Reporter,” “Court Reporter,” or “C.S.R.” in connection with their professional practice.
Transcript accuracy: Certified reporters must accept assignments consistent with their competence and ability to produce accurate transcripts.
Impartiality: Reporters must remain fair and impartial toward participants in reported proceedings.
Professional standards: Section 1200.90 establishes standards of professional conduct for certified shorthand reporters.
Continuing education: License renewal generally requires continuing education, subject to statutory exceptions and waivers.

Official court records: Illinois courts use both stenographic court reporters and authorized digital recording systems.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 46 and the Administrative Regulations for Court Reporting Services govern aspects of official court reporting. Individual judicial circuits may also establish procedures for transcript requests, certification, electronic recordings, and record preservation.

For example, the 17th Judicial Circuit’s General Order No. 16 specifies procedures for official court records, digital recording, transcript certification, and correction of disputed transcripts.

These requirements establish responsibility for accurate official records without independently prohibiting every form of AI-assisted transcript preparation.

Official Sources

INDIANA

AI-Related Court Policy

The Indiana Judicial Branch has begun exploring artificial intelligence as a tool for improving court operations, including the preparation of transcripts.

In the Indiana Supreme Court’s 2025 State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Loretta Rush reported that Marion County courts had piloted AI technology to produce transcripts of certain hearings much more quickly and at lower cost.

The Chief Justice described situations in which transcript preparation times were reduced from weeks or months to minutes.

Indiana’s Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future has also examined how emerging technologies, including generative AI, might be used safely and ethically to improve access to legal services.

Its final report was published July 1, 2025, and the Indiana Supreme Court subsequently considered the commission’s recommendations.

Important distinction: These initiatives demonstrate that Indiana is actively exploring AI in the judicial system. They do not establish statewide authorization for unrestricted AI transcription or a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping.

Court Reporting Requirements

Indiana governs court reporters and official transcript preparation through its court rules, statutes, and county-level court reporter policies.

Important requirements include:

Recording methods: Indiana courts may use approved electronic or mechanical recording equipment or stenographic reporting with computer-aided transcription.
Authorized transcription: Under Indiana Code § 33-41-1-5, a judge may authorize a court reporter or another responsible, competent person to prepare transcripts from official recordings.
Transcript certification: A properly certified transcript prepared from an authorized recording has the same legal effect as a certified transcript prepared from stenographic notes.
Court reporter services: Indiana Administrative Rule 15 requires courts within each county to adopt approved local rules governing court reporter services and transcript compensation.
Appellate transcripts: Indiana Appellate Rules 10 and 11 establish procedures and deadlines for preparing and filing transcripts on appeal.
Transcript formatting: Appendix A to the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure establishes standards for preparing electronic transcripts.
Confidentiality: Court reporters and transcription personnel must comply with applicable rules restricting access to confidential court records.

Indiana’s official guidance identifies a standard 45-day period for completing an appellate transcript, subject to applicable rules and extensions.

These requirements recognize both traditional stenographic reporting and authorized electronic recording while maintaining responsibility for accurate, certified transcripts.

Official Sources

IOWA

AI-Related Court Policy

On July 21, 2026, the Iowa Supreme Court adopted Chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools, with an effective date of January 1, 2027.

The new rules govern the use of AI, including generative AI, by judicial officers and adjudicative assistants performing judicial decision-making duties.

The rules establish a framework addressing:

Approved AI tools: A judicial branch AI governance committee will oversee approval of tools for covered judicial uses.
Human responsibility: Judicial officers remain accountable for their decisions and must exercise independent judgment.
Accuracy and reliability: AI-generated information must be evaluated rather than accepted without verification.
Confidentiality: Judicial AI use is subject to safeguards protecting sensitive court information.
Training and oversight: The framework addresses education, disclosure, reporting, and responsible implementation.

Important distinction: Chapter 27 has been adopted but is not yet effective as of October 2026. It primarily concerns judicial officers and adjudicative assistants, not independent scopists or private transcript editors.

The authorities reviewed do not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping.

Court Reporting Requirements

Iowa regulates shorthand reporters through Iowa Code Chapter 602, Article 3, under the supervision of the Iowa Supreme Court and its Board of Examiners of Shorthand Reporters.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Iowa Code § 602.3201 generally requires certification to practice shorthand reporting, subject to statutory exceptions.
Official court reporters: Section 602.6603 establishes qualifications and appointment procedures for district court reporters.
Professional accountability: Section 602.3203 provides grounds for suspension or revocation, including incompetence, unethical conduct, and fraudulent representations.
Transcript integrity: Section 602.3204 protects a reporter’s control over original deposition transcripts before certification and delivery.
Electronic recordings: Iowa Appellate Rule 6.803 recognizes official transcripts prepared from electronic recordings by court-appointed transcriptionists.
Transcript preparation: Rule 6.803 establishes procedures and formatting standards for appellate transcripts.
Transcript compensation: Iowa Court Rule 22.28 governs payment for transcribing official court reporter notes; amendments took effect August 26, 2026.

Iowa therefore recognizes both certified shorthand reporting and authorized transcription of electronically recorded proceedings.

These requirements establish professional responsibility for accurate official transcripts but do not independently authorize or prohibit particular AI transcription technologies.

Official Sources

KANSAS

AI-Related Court Policy

On February 27, 2025, the Kansas Supreme Court issued Administrative Order 2025-CM-017, establishing an Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee to study AI use within the Kansas Judicial Branch.

The order recognizes potential benefits of artificial intelligence, including greater efficiency and improved access to justice, while identifying risks involving confidentiality, inaccurate information, and bias.

The committee’s responsibilities include:

Judicial AI policies: Recommending procedures for AI use by court employees.
Technology oversight: Evaluating AI vendors, software, and proposed applications.
Public and professional use: Developing recommendations for attorneys, litigants, and others using court services.
AI governance: Reviewing and approving potential AI applications involving court functions.

Important distinction: Establishing the committee does not itself authorize unrestricted AI use or prohibit AI-assisted scoping. No statewide Kansas rule specifically banning AI-assisted transcript editing was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Kansas regulates official district court reporters through Kansas Statutes Annotated §§ 20-910a through 20-917 and Kansas Supreme Court rules.

Important requirements include:

Certification: K.S.A. § 20-912 authorizes the Kansas Supreme Court to establish certification requirements for official district court reporters.
Appointment: Under § 20-914, an individual must hold the required certificate before appointment as an official district court reporter.
Transcript certification: Section 20-910a recognizes transcripts prepared and certified by official court reporters as evidence under specified circumstances.
Accuracy: Section 20-911 establishes penalties for knowingly false transcript certification or intentional omission of relevant proceedings.
Court oversight: Section 20-917 authorizes the Kansas Supreme Court to regulate court records and establish rules governing transcript preparation.
Electronic recordings: Kansas Supreme Court Rule 364 applies official transcript preparation and delivery requirements to transcripts produced from electronic recordings under the direction of the district court clerk.

Kansas law therefore recognizes both official court reporting and authorized transcription of electronically recorded proceedings.

These requirements establish responsibility for accurate, properly certified transcripts. They do not independently authorize or prohibit particular AI transcription technologies.

Official Sources

KENTUCKY

AI-Related Court Policy

Kentucky courts have begun addressing generative artificial intelligence through local court procedures, particularly concerning the accuracy of AI-assisted legal filings.

Certain Kentucky family court rules require attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify that either no generative AI was used to draft a filing or that any AI-generated language, legal citations, and analysis were independently checked for accuracy.

These requirements emphasize:

Accuracy: AI-generated legal authorities and factual assertions must be verified.
Human accountability: The person signing a filing remains responsible for its contents.
Professional responsibility: Attorneys must comply with applicable ethical and procedural requirements.
Potential sanctions: Failure to comply with a court’s AI certification requirements may result in sanctions.

Important distinction: These are local filing requirements, not a statewide prohibition on AI-assisted court transcription or scoping.

No statewide Kentucky judicial rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted transcript editing was identified in the official sources reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Kentucky courts recognize both electronically recorded proceedings and written transcripts as components of official court records.

Important requirements include:

Official court records: Court records may include video recordings, transcripts, pleadings, orders, and other documents associated with proceedings.
Record access: Requests for court recordings and transcripts generally begin with the clerk of the court where the proceeding occurred.
Local procedures: Individual courts may establish rules governing recording, transcript requests, and access to proceedings.
Administrative hearings: Kentucky administrative regulations recognize stenographic and electronic recording methods.
Transcript preparation: Certain administrative proceedings expressly require transcripts to be prepared by certified court reporters under applicable contractual arrangements.
Confidentiality: Access to recordings and transcripts may be restricted by court orders or laws protecting confidential proceedings.

These provisions demonstrate Kentucky’s recognition of multiple recording methods, but they do not establish blanket authorization or prohibition of AI-assisted transcript preparation.

Official Sources

LOUISIANA

AI-Related Court Policy

On January 22, 2024, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a letter addressing the emergence of artificial intelligence in the legal profession.

The Court explained that existing ethical and professional rules governing judges and attorneys were sufficiently broad to address AI-related concerns at that time.

Its guidance emphasizes:

Human accountability: Attorneys remain responsible for their filings and other work products, regardless of whether AI was used.
Accuracy: Attorneys must verify legal and factual assertions and avoid misrepresentations.
Confidentiality: AI use must comply with existing duties to protect confidential information.
Professional competence: Attorneys and judges must maintain appropriate technological competence.
Judicial responsibility: Judges remain responsible for their decisions and opinions.

The Court indicated that its Technology Commission and Rules Committee would continue monitoring AI developments and consider whether additional rules were necessary.

Important distinction: The January 2024 letter is judicial guidance, not a new statewide court-reporting regulation. It does not categorically prohibit AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Louisiana regulates court reporters through the Certified Shorthand Reporters Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 37, Chapter 32, together with statutes governing official court reporters and transcript preparation.

Important requirements include:

Certification: R.S. 37:2554 establishes certification qualifications, examinations, and related requirements administered by the Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters.
Recognized reporting methods: R.S. 37:2555 defines court reporting to include stenography, stenomask voice recording, computer-assisted technology, and other methods.
Digital reporting: R.S. 37:2556 recognizes certified digital reporters for specified official court-reporting functions, subject to statutory requirements.
Official reporter duties: R.S. 13:961 governs the appointment and responsibilities of official district court reporters.
Transcript formatting: R.S. 13:961.2 establishes detailed formatting requirements for transcripts prepared by official and deputy court reporters, subject to statutory exceptions.
Civil proceedings: Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 372 addresses verbatim reporting, transcript preparation, and retention of notes and recordings.
Appellate deadlines: Article 2127.2 establishes requirements for delivering transcripts needed to complete civil appellate records.
Criminal records: R.S. 15:511 establishes retention requirements for court reporters’ notes and recordings in criminal cases.

Important distinction: Louisiana’s recognition of computer-assisted and digital reporting does not automatically extend to unrestricted generative AI transcription. Official transcripts must still comply with applicable certification, accuracy, formatting, and court-supervision requirements.

Official Sources

MAINE

AI-Related Court Policy

The Maine Judicial Branch has established rules governing court records, electronic recording, and professional responsibilities. However, no statewide Maine Supreme Judicial Court rule specifically addressing generative AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Existing requirements remain relevant when AI tools are considered:

Accuracy: Official transcripts must accurately represent the proceedings.
Human accountability: Authorized reporters and transcribers remain responsible for certifying their work.
Confidentiality: Restricted court proceedings and records must be protected under applicable rules and court orders.
Court authorization: Recording and transcription of proceedings are subject to judicial rules and supervision.

Important distinction: The absence of an identified statewide AI-specific restriction does not constitute permission to use AI with confidential recordings or transcripts. Any proposed AI-assisted workflow must comply with the applicable court’s requirements.

Court Reporting Requirements

Maine governs court reporting and transcript preparation through Title 4, Chapter 15 of the Maine Revised Statutes, the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, and Judicial Branch administrative orders.

Important requirements include:

Recognized reporting methods: Maine recognizes transcripts prepared from official stenographic notes and electronically recorded court proceedings.
Electronic sound recording: Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 76H governs courtroom audio recording, including when proceedings must be recorded and when independent recording is permitted.
Transcript certification: Title 4, § 653 recognizes certification by an official court reporter or a transcriber of an electronically recorded proceeding as sufficient authentication in specified appellate circumstances.
Transcript accuracy: Section 655 recognizes certified stenographic notes and transcripts prepared from electronic recordings as evidence of prior testimony.
Professional ethics: Sections 771–779 establish ethical standards for private court reporters and court-reporting service providers, including impartiality and comparable treatment of parties.
Judicial Branch exception: Those private reporting provisions expressly exclude Judicial Branch employees and persons transcribing proceedings for the Judicial Branch.
Electronic signatures: Maine Rule of Electronic Court Systems 37 permits specified forms of court reporter signatures on documents and transcripts filed in the court record.
Confidentiality: Public access to recordings and transcripts is restricted for nonpublic proceedings, including certain juvenile, child protection, and involuntary commitment matters.

The Maine Judicial Branch’s Office of Transcript Operations coordinates transcript and audio-recording requests. Transcripts may be produced from an official audio recording or from an official court reporter’s record.

These requirements emphasize accuracy, certification, authorized access, and proper handling of official court records without establishing a categorical ban on AI-assisted transcript editing.

Official Sources

MARYLAND

AI-Related Court Policy

The Maryland Judiciary has established an Artificial Intelligence Governance Subcommittee to guide responsible AI adoption and evaluate potential uses within the court system.

In 2025, the Judiciary introduced AIDA, an internal AI assistant designed to support translation, research, document summarization, and drafting.

The Judiciary’s published employee handbook also identifies a Policy for the Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools and Platforms, dated July 2026. However, the policy itself is available through the Judiciary’s internal CourtNet system, so its specific restrictions cannot be independently evaluated from the public handbook.

Maryland’s documented AI initiatives emphasize:

Governance: Reviewing proposed AI applications and developing guidance for judicial employees.
Accuracy: Evaluating AI-generated information and potential errors.
Confidentiality: Protecting sensitive judicial information when considering AI technologies.
Responsible adoption: Assessing appropriate applications, including administrative workflows and access-to-justice services.

Important distinction: Maryland’s internal AI policy should not be characterized as a statewide rule governing independent scopists. No publicly accessible statewide judicial rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing was identified in the official sources reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Maryland governs court reporting and transcription through Maryland Rules 16-501 through 16-505, administrative orders, and the Maryland Judiciary’s Court Reporting Manual.

Important requirements include:

Official recording: Maryland Rules 16-502 and 16-503 establish recording requirements for District Court and circuit court proceedings, respectively.
Transcription standards: Rule 16-504 governs the preparation and handling of transcripts and recordings.
Minimum qualifications: A September 10, 2021 administrative order establishes minimum requirements for court reporting and transcription services in Maryland courts.
Transcript certification: Official transcripts must satisfy applicable preparation and certification requirements.
Transcript formatting: The Maryland Judiciary’s Court Reporting Manual provides standards for transcript preparation, formatting, and submission.
Electronic recordings: Maryland courts use authorized audio and other recording methods. A copy of a courtroom recording is not necessarily a certified official transcript.
Transcript fees: Rule 16-505 and a September 10, 2021 administrative order govern maximum transcription charges.
Confidentiality: Access to recordings and transcripts may be restricted by court rules, court orders, or protections for particular proceedings.

Maryland’s District Court generally records proceedings electronically, while circuit courts use court-authorized reporting and recording arrangements.

These requirements emphasize authorized recording, accurate transcription, certification, and appropriate access. They do not independently establish blanket permission or prohibition for AI-assisted transcript preparation.

Official Sources

MASSACHUSETTS

AI-Related Court Policy

On November 12, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued Interim Guidelines for Use of Generative AI.

The guidelines apply to judges, clerks, registers, recorders, court employees, law clerks, interns, and contractors working within the Massachusetts state courts.

Unlike states that broadly permit responsible AI use, Massachusetts has adopted a more restrictive interim approach.

Important provisions include:

Limited permitted uses: Generative AI generally may not be used except in circumstances specifically permitted by the guidelines.
Administrative work: The Supreme Judicial Court has identified limited administrative tasks as permissible uses.
Public information only: Permitted AI use must not involve submitting confidential or nonpublic court information.
Data protection: Approved uses require safeguards against AI systems retaining submitted information or using it for model training.
Human accountability: Judicial personnel remain responsible for their work and decisions.
Continuing review: The guidelines are interim and may be revised as AI technology and court practices evolve.

The Supreme Judicial Court has also reviewed whether the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct require amendments addressing generative AI. Its advisory committee concluded that existing professional conduct requirements provide sufficient guidance for attorneys at present.

Important distinction: The interim guidelines expressly include contractors of the state courts. They should not automatically be interpreted as applying to every independent scopist working privately for a court reporter. However, anyone preparing transcripts under a Massachusetts court contract should determine whether the guidelines and applicable contractual restrictions govern their work.

Court Reporting Requirements

Massachusetts recognizes both stenographic court reporting and transcription of electronically recorded proceedings.

Important requirements include:

Approved Court Transcribers: The Massachusetts Trial Court’s Office of Transcription Services contracts with Approved Court Transcribers (ACTs) to prepare official transcripts from digital court recordings.
Qualification screening: ACTs must demonstrate appropriate education, experience, and the ability to transcribe recordings completely and accurately.
Official transcript assignments: Original transcript orders submitted during fiscal year 2027 must be assigned through the Office of Transcription Services to an approved transcriber.
Stenographic transcripts: Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 80 recognizes properly certified transcripts prepared by official stenographic reporters.
Electronic recording: Superior Court Administrative Directive 18-1 establishes procedures for electronically recording criminal proceedings, including the responsibility to create a complete, accurate, and audible record.
Transcript formatting: Trial Court Administrative Direction 1-08 establishes uniform transcript formatting requirements.
Appellate transcripts: Massachusetts Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 and Trial Court Administrative Order 19-1 govern transcript preparation for appellate review.
Confidentiality: Court recordings and transcripts remain subject to laws and rules governing public access, impoundment, and protected proceedings.

Massachusetts therefore permits official transcripts to be prepared through authorized stenographic and electronic-recording workflows, with responsibility assigned to qualified reporting and transcription personnel.

Important distinction: The recognition of digital transcription does not automatically authorize generative AI processing of court recordings. The November 2025 AI guidelines, confidentiality requirements, and applicable court contracts must be considered before incorporating AI into a court-transcription workflow.

Official Sources

MICHIGAN

AI-Related Court Policy

The Michigan Judicial Council established a Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Courts Workgroup as part of its 2024 operational plan.

The workgroup examined opportunities and risks associated with generative AI in the judicial system. Its final report recommended:

Education and training: Improving AI literacy among judges, court administrators, and employees.
Pilot programs: Testing proposed AI applications in controlled court environments.
Risk management: Addressing inaccurate information, bias, confidentiality, and professional responsibility.
Responsible implementation: Evaluating AI tools before incorporating them into judicial operations.

The Michigan Judicial Council’s 2026–2029 Strategic Agenda continues to identify generative AI as a potential means of improving access to justice.

Separately, in Barber v. Morawa (June 17, 2026), the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an attorney’s submission of fabricated and unsupported legal authorities resulting from inadequately verified AI research. The court emphasized that attorneys remain responsible for verifying their filings and that existing court rules can support sanctions.

Important distinction: The Judicial Council’s recommendations are not themselves binding statewide AI regulations. The Barber decision concerns attorney filings, not transcript editing. No statewide Michigan rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Michigan regulates court reporters and recorders primarily through Michigan Court Rules 8.108 and 8.109, administered by the State Court Administrative Office and the Court Reporting and Recording Board of Review.

Important requirements include:

Certification: MCR 8.108(G) generally requires individuals who record proceedings or prepare transcripts in Michigan courts, or depositions governed by the rule, to hold the appropriate certification.
Recognized credentials: The rule identifies Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSR), Certified Electronic Recorders (CER), Certified Voice Writers/Stenomask Reporters (CSMR), and Certified Electronic Operators (CEO).
Operator limitations: A person holding only CEO certification may operate authorized recording equipment but may not prepare official transcripts under that credential.
Verbatim record: MCR 8.108(B) requires the reporter or recorder to capture specified portions of proceedings, including testimony, jury instructions, and other required statements.
Transcript preparation: MCR 8.108(E) requires reporters and recorders to prepare transcripts upon proper request or court order.
Official filing: MCR 8.108(F) governs filing completed transcripts and notifying the parties.
Court ownership of records: MCR 8.108(C) provides that reporting and recording records belong to the court. Special procedures govern access to copies for off-site transcription.
Electronic recording: MCR 8.109 authorizes audio and video recording systems that comply with standards established by the State Court Administrative Office.
Confidentiality and access: MCR 8.119 governs court records, including restrictions on access to recordings and other protected materials.

Important distinction: Michigan’s certification rule is particularly relevant to transcript preparation. An independent scopist assisting a certified reporter should not assume that editing a draft independently qualifies the scopist to prepare, issue, or certify an official transcript. The certified professional’s responsibilities and any applicable court requirements must be respected.

Likewise, Michigan’s authorization of electronic recording does not automatically authorize uploading court recordings to external AI services.

Official Sources

MINNESOTA

AI-Related Court Policy

On November 1, 2024, the Minnesota Judicial Council’s Policy 704, Artificial Intelligence, took effect.

The policy applies to the Minnesota Judicial Branch and establishes principles for the appropriate use of artificial intelligence by judicial officers and Judicial Branch employees.

Its five guiding principles are:

Responsible: The Judicial Branch must exercise appropriate judgment and remain accountable for AI systems it develops, deploys, or uses.
Equitable: AI must support ethical, fair, and just court operations.
Traceable: AI applications should be transparent and auditable.
Reliable: AI systems should use high-quality data and support safe, secure, and consistent results.
Governable: AI systems must be designed so that unintended consequences can be identified and problematic systems can be disabled.

The policy encompasses generative AI, machine learning, and robotic process automation.

The Judicial Council also approved the use of Westlaw’s AI-assisted legal research functionality for certain courts in February 2024, subject to specified approvals.

Important distinction: Policy 704 is an internal Judicial Branch governance policy. It does not establish a blanket statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing by independent professionals. However, court employees and anyone working under Judicial Branch arrangements must comply with applicable policies, confidentiality requirements, and approved workflows.

Court Reporting Requirements

Minnesota regulates official court reporting primarily through Minnesota Statutes Chapter 486, the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, and the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch.

Important requirements include:

Official court reporters: Minnesota Statutes § 486.01 authorizes district court judges to appoint competent stenographic court reporters.
Verbatim reporting: Section 486.02 requires a complete stenographic record of specified proceedings, including testimony, objections, rulings, and jury instructions, except where authorized electronic recording procedures apply.
Electronic recording: Minnesota Statutes § 484.72 permits authorized electronic recording of district court proceedings.
Transcript preparation: Section 486.03 addresses preservation of the recorded proceedings and preparation of transcripts upon request.
Transcript delivery and filing: General Rule of Practice 17 requires electronic delivery in most circumstances and establishes filing requirements for transcripts prepared for purposes other than appeals.
Official record: Rule 4, subdivision 3, of the Rules of Public Access generally provides that the written transcript, rather than the underlying audio recording, is the official record of electronically recorded proceedings.
Recording access: Court audio recordings generally are not released to the public; authorized personnel may use them for preparing official transcripts.
Freelance reporting: Minnesota Statutes § 486.10 requires disclosure of certain contractual relationships and imposes impartiality and equal-treatment obligations on freelance reporters and reporting firms.
Appellate transcripts: Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 110.02 governs transcript preparation for civil appeals.

Important distinction: Minnesota recognizes both stenographic reporting and authorized electronic recording, but neither method automatically authorizes the use of external AI transcription services. Access restrictions, confidentiality obligations, and Judicial Branch policies must be considered before recordings or transcript materials are processed with AI.

Official Sources

MISSISSIPPI

AI-Related Court Policy

Mississippi has taken steps toward regulating artificial intelligence in state government, but the distinction between executive-agency policies and judicial rules is important.

On November 25, 2025, the Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services (ITS) approved an AI Acceptable Use Policy addressing responsible AI use within that department.

The policy emphasizes:

Human oversight: AI may assist government employees but must not replace their judgment in sensitive decisions.
Accuracy: AI-generated information must be reviewed and validated.
Confidentiality: Sensitive information may not be submitted to unapproved AI systems.
Transparency: AI applications should be accountable, understandable, and auditable.
Security: AI systems should undergo appropriate risk and security assessments.

Mississippi also established an Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AIR) Task Force to study AI regulation and recommend potential legislative changes.

Separately, the Mississippi Bar published AI Tools for Lawyers — A Practical Guide in July 2025. This is professional guidance for attorneys, not a court-reporting regulation.

Important distinction: The ITS policy applies to the executive agency and should not be described as a statewide judicial AI policy. No Mississippi Supreme Court rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Mississippi regulates court reporters through its Rules and Regulations Governing Certified Court Reporters, approved by the Mississippi Supreme Court, and applicable provisions of Mississippi Code Title 9, Chapter 13.

On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court adopted amendments to the reporting rules, effective July 1, 2025.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Court reporters must hold the appropriate Mississippi certification or authorized temporary permission to practice.
Recognized methods: The rules define court reporting to include pen shorthand, machine shorthand, and oral stenography, also known as stenomask reporting.
Authorized methods: A certified reporter may practice only through the reporting methods covered by the reporter’s license.
Official appointments: Official court reporters must be properly licensed and appointed by a circuit, chancery, or county court judge.
Impartiality: Reporters must treat participants fairly, disclose potential conflicts, and avoid improper conduct.
Confidentiality: Reporters must protect information entrusted to them during proceedings.
Transcript identification: Certified reporters and reporters holding temporary permission must place their certification or permission number on transcript title and certificate pages, together with their signature.
Personal effort or supervision: A reporter may not authorize use of their certification number on a transcript that was not produced through their personal effort or supervision.
Appellate transcripts: Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 establishes requirements for preparing, certifying, and filing transcripts for appeals.

Important distinction: Mississippi’s requirement that transcripts be produced through a reporter’s personal effort or supervision is especially relevant to scoping. It recognizes the importance of reporter oversight, but it should not be interpreted as automatic permission to use AI tools or to disclose confidential recordings to third-party services.

Official Sources

MISSOURI

AI-Related Court Policy

On August 14, 2025, Missouri’s 20th Judicial Circuit approved Local Court Rule 17, establishing disclosure and certification requirements for generative artificial intelligence used in documents filed with the court.

The rule requires attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI to prepare court filings to:

Disclose AI use: Identify that generative AI was used and specify the AI tool.
Verify accuracy: Certify that AI-generated content, including citations and legal authorities, has been checked for accuracy.
Accept responsibility: Remain accountable for the contents of the filing under applicable court rules and professional conduct standards.
Comply with sanctions provisions: Recognize that failure to provide the required disclosure and certification may result in sanctions.

Important distinction: Rule 17 is a local judicial circuit rule governing court filings, not a statewide prohibition on AI-assisted court reporting or scoping.

No Missouri Supreme Court rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted transcript editing was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Missouri regulates certified court reporters through Missouri Supreme Court Rule 14 and Chapter 485 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.

Important requirements include:

Certification: Missouri Supreme Court Rule 14 establishes the Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners and requirements for professional certification.
Official appointments: RSMo § 485.040 requires circuit judges to appoint certified court reporters as official reporters, subject to statutory exceptions.
Temporary reporters: Section 485.077 permits temporary appointments in specified circumstances but generally limits service without certification to six months.
Deposition transcripts: Section 485.077 generally requires depositions taken in Missouri for use in Missouri state court proceedings to be prepared and certified by a certified court reporter, subject to stated exceptions.
Verbatim reporting: Section 485.050 requires official reporters to preserve stenographic notes of testimony, objections, rulings, and other specified proceedings.
Transcript preparation: Official reporters must furnish transcripts of recorded proceedings upon proper request and payment of applicable fees.
Electronic recordings: Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.12 recognizes transcripts prepared from electronic sound recordings for appellate proceedings.
Transcript certification: Under Rule 81.12, a transcript prepared by a reporter who attended the proceedings must be certified by that reporter. A transcript prepared from an electronic sound recording must be certified by the transcriber as an accurate reproduction of the recording.
Transcript formatting: Rule 81.12 establishes formatting and preparation requirements for appellate transcripts.

Important distinction: Missouri expressly recognizes certified transcripts prepared from electronic recordings. However, this does not automatically authorize generative AI transcription or allow an unqualified individual to perform work reserved for a certified court reporter.

Scopists assisting certified reporters should ensure that transcript preparation, supervision, certification, confidentiality, and any applicable court-specific requirements are satisfied.

Official Sources

MONTANA

AI-Related Court Policy

On September 22, 2026, the Montana Second Judicial District Court, serving Butte-Silver Bow County, adopted a local rule governing generative artificial intelligence in court filings.

The rule requires parties, including attorneys and self-represented litigants, who use generative AI to prepare pleadings or other filed documents to disclose:

The AI tool used: Identification of the specific generative AI system.
How AI was used: An explanation of the tool’s role in preparing the document.
Verification: Certification that AI-assisted content has been checked for accuracy, including factual statements, procedural information, citations, and legal authorities.

The court presumes that filings without the required certification were prepared without generative AI.

Important distinction: This rule applies to filings in Montana’s Second Judicial District. It does not establish a statewide ban on AI use or specifically prohibit AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

No statewide Montana Supreme Court policy specifically regulating generative AI use by independent scopists was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Montana regulates official district court reporters through Montana Code Annotated Title 3, Chapter 5, Part 6, together with the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure and applicable court orders.

Important requirements include:

Appointment and qualifications: MCA § 3-5-601 governs the appointment of district court reporters and their oath of office.
Official reporting duties: Montana statutes establish the duties of district court reporters in recording proceedings and maintaining reporting records.
Transcript preparation: MCA § 3-5-604 governs the preparation and furnishing of transcripts from court reporters’ stenographic notes, including applicable payment arrangements.
Substitute reporters: MCA § 3-5-611 provides for appointment of a reporter pro tempore when the regular reporter is excused.
Appellate transcripts: Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 establishes procedures for requesting, preparing, and filing transcripts needed for appeals.
Transcript deadlines: Rule 8 addresses the court reporter’s responsibilities, transcript delivery, and requests for extensions.
Electronic filing: Montana’s electronic filing rules permit court reporters to file transcripts electronically in authorized proceedings.
Local court procedures: Individual judicial districts may impose additional requirements concerning recording, transcript preparation, and access to court materials.

Important distinction: Montana’s recognition of computer-assisted transcript preparation and electronic filing does not automatically authorize uploading confidential recordings or transcripts to external AI services.

Scopists working with Montana court reporters should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions and any applicable court orders, confidentiality requirements, and transcript certification procedures.

Official Sources

NEBRASKA

AI-Related Court Policy

The Nebraska Supreme Court has established detailed technology standards for official court reporting, including approved stenographic software, digital recording systems, and secure storage of court records.

However, no publicly available statewide Nebraska Supreme Court policy specifically governing generative AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Existing court-reporting rules provide several important safeguards:

Approved technology: Official court reporters must use recording or stenographic software approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts and Probation, as applicable to their reporting method.
Record integrity: Official court recordings and related electronic files must be preserved according to Supreme Court-approved technology standards.
Professional accountability: Authorized reporting personnel remain responsible for preparing and delivering accurate court records.
Confidentiality: Restricted proceedings and protected information must be handled according to applicable court rules and orders.
Court supervision: Official reporting and transcription arrangements operate under judicial authority and the Nebraska Supreme Court’s rules.

Important distinction: Nebraska’s approval requirements for official reporting and recording software should not automatically be interpreted as a prohibition on every AI-assisted editing tool. Conversely, the absence of an identified AI-specific prohibition does not establish permission to upload court recordings or transcripts to external AI services.

Court Reporting Requirements

Nebraska regulates official court reporting primarily through Nebraska Supreme Court Rules §§ 1-201 through 1-218, together with applicable statutes and appellate rules.

Important requirements include:

Court appointments: Nebraska Revised Statute § 24-1003 authorizes the Supreme Court to regulate recording, preservation, and transcription of proceedings in district and separate juvenile courts.
Reporting personnel: Rule § 1-201 governs the appointment, contracting, and registration of official court reporters, courtroom clerks, and other authorized personnel.
Qualifications: Rule § 1-204 establishes qualifications for stenographic reporters, digital reporters, courtroom clerks, and contracted transcribers.
Contracted transcription: Rule § 1-203 generally requires digital recordings made by courtroom clerks or other court personnel to be transcribed by qualified official court reporters or privately contracted court transcribers, unless otherwise directed by the Supreme Court.
Approved software: Rule § 1-205 requires official reporters to use approved stenographic or digital recording software and follow applicable storage and retention standards.
Backup recordings: Official stenographic reporters must create an audio backup of court proceedings for transcript preparation and verification.
County court recordings: Nebraska Revised Statute § 25-2732 generally requires county court testimony to be preserved using multitrack recording equipment, although the court may order a court reporter.
Transcript requests: Rule § 6-1405 governs requests for transcriptions and copies of digital recordings of county court proceedings, with restrictions for certain hearings.
Appellate records: Nebraska Court Rule § 2-105 establishes requirements for preparing and filing the bill of exceptions, which contains the verbatim record of proceedings needed for appellate review.
Electronic filing: Authorized reporting personnel and contracted transcriptionists must comply with applicable electronic filing and registration requirements.

Important distinction: Nebraska’s express recognition of qualified contracted transcribers is significant for scopists and transcription professionals. However, authorization to transcribe official proceedings is not the same as unrestricted permission to use generative AI. Applicable qualifications, court supervision, technology standards, and confidentiality restrictions still govern the work.

Official Sources

NEVADA

AI-Related Court Policy

The Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts has published an Artificial Intelligence Guide for Judicial Officers, addressing the responsible use of generative AI in court operations.

The guidance identifies several important safeguards:

Human oversight: AI should supplement, not replace, judicial judgment.
Accuracy: AI-generated information must be independently verified, particularly legal citations and factual assertions.
Confidentiality: Judicial officers should avoid entering sensitive or protected court information into AI systems.
Security: AI tools used for judicial work should comply with applicable security and confidentiality standards.
Evidence integrity: Courts should remain alert to fabricated AI-generated evidence, including deepfakes.
Professional responsibility: AI use must remain consistent with judicial ethics and public confidence in the courts.

Nevada’s 2026–2028 Judicial Strategic Action Campaign also identifies AI as an opportunity to improve access to justice, court communications, and administrative efficiency, while emphasizing oversight, fairness, and accountability.

Important distinction: The AI Guide is published judicial guidance, while the strategic campaign establishes institutional priorities. Neither document is a statewide rule specifically authorizing or prohibiting AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

Nevada regulates certified court reporters and court reporting firms through Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 656 and Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 656.

Important requirements include:

Certification: NRS 656.145 generally prohibits practicing court reporting without the required certificate, subject to statutory exceptions.
Official court appointments: NRS 656.320 requires a current certificate for appointment as an official court reporter.
Reporting methods: NRS 656.030 recognizes manual or mechanical shorthand and voice writing, including specified digital voice-writing methods.
Transcript identification: NRS 656.310 requires certified reporters to include their certificate number on transcripts.
Verbatim accuracy: NAC 656.350 requires reporters to accurately report proceedings, subject to specified exceptions.
Alterations after certification: NRS 656.345 and NAC 656.350 restrict changes to certified transcripts. Reporting firms may make certain nonsubstantive corrections only with the certifying reporter’s approval.
Transcript formatting: NAC 656.360 establishes page size, margins, line counts, and other formatting requirements.
Confidentiality: NAC 656.380 establishes confidentiality obligations for court reporters and reporting firms.
Record retention: NRS 656.335 establishes requirements for retaining certain reporting notes.

Important distinction: Nevada’s rules are especially relevant to scopists because transcript corrections and certification remain subject to the certified reporter’s authority. Editing a transcript before certification is not equivalent to independently practicing court reporting, but scopists should not assume that every AI-assisted workflow is permissible.

Any use of external AI services should be evaluated against confidentiality obligations, client instructions, and applicable court requirements.

Official Sources

NEW HAMPSHIRE

AI-Related Court Policy

No publicly available statewide New Hampshire Supreme Court policy specifically governing generative AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

However, New Hampshire’s existing court-reporting statutes establish important professional safeguards relevant to AI-assisted workflows:

Accuracy: Court reporters must produce complete, accurate, and secure legal records.
Professional responsibility: Licensed reporters remain accountable for transcripts prepared by them or under their supervision.
Transcript integrity: A reporter may not affix their professional seal to a transcript that was not prepared by them or under their supervision.
Confidentiality and security: Transcript materials must be handled consistently with applicable professional obligations, court orders, and restrictions on access.
Authorized reporting methods: Court reporters must practice using the reporting method for which they are licensed.

Important distinction: New Hampshire’s recognition of supervised transcript preparation is not blanket authorization for AI-assisted scoping. The statutes do not expressly resolve whether particular AI tools may be used to process court recordings or transcript materials.

Court Reporting Requirements

New Hampshire regulates court reporters through RSA 310-A:161–181, administered by the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification, and RSA 519:26–31, governing official court stenographers.

Important requirements include:

Licensing: RSA 310-A:168 requires individuals engaging in court reporting to hold a valid license specifying their authorized reporting method.
Recognized methods: RSA 310-A:162 recognizes shorthand reporting, machine writing, and voice writing.
Qualifications: RSA 310-A:169 recognizes the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) and Certified Voice Reporter (CVR) credentials for licensure.
Professional standards: RSA 310-A:167 requires competence in verbatim reporting and maintaining complete, accurate, and secure legal records.
Supervised transcript preparation: RSA 310-A:172 expressly permits a licensed reporter’s seal on transcripts prepared by that reporter or under their supervision.
License identification: RSA 310-A:179 requires licensed reporters to display their license numbers on transcripts.
Professional ethics: RSA 310-A:180 provides for adoption of the National Court Reporters Association Code of Ethics.
Continuing education: RSA 310-A:178 establishes continuing education obligations.
Official stenographers: RSA 519:26 authorizes appointment of official superior court stenographers.
Transcript certification: RSA 519:28 requires a true report of proceedings when ordered and provides for filing stenographic notes and certified transcripts upon request.
Transcript fees: RSA 519:30 authorizes the court to establish transcript pricing.

The New Hampshire Judicial Branch also publishes specifications for contracted transcription services. Those specifications emphasize accurate reproduction of spoken testimony, speaker identification, formatting, and appropriate handling of off-the-record communications.

Important distinction: New Hampshire’s supervision provision is especially relevant to scopists. It permits a licensed reporter to supervise transcript preparation, but the reporter retains responsibility for the professional seal and compliance with applicable law. It does not independently establish permission to submit recordings or transcripts to external AI services.

Official Sources

NEW JERSEY

AI-Related Court Policy

On January 23, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court approved its Statement of Principles for the Judiciary’s Ongoing Use of Artificial Intelligence, including generative AI.

The principles emphasize responsible innovation while protecting judicial independence, fairness, public confidence, confidentiality, and the security of court information.

The Court also issued Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers in January 2024.

Those guidelines address:

Accuracy: Attorneys must independently verify AI-generated facts, citations, and legal arguments.
Confidentiality: AI use must comply with obligations to protect client information.
Professional competence: Attorneys must understand the benefits, limitations, and risks of AI tools.
Human accountability: Lawyers remain responsible for their professional work, including AI-assisted submissions.
Ethical oversight: AI use must remain consistent with existing Rules of Professional Conduct.

On March 30, 2026, the Judiciary issued additional guidance encouraging attorneys and law firms to establish internal AI policies, review AI-assisted work, train personnel, and oversee third-party technology use.

Important distinction: These statewide judicial principles and attorney guidelines do not establish a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping. They also do not independently authorize AI transcription of confidential court proceedings. Court reporting and transcription remain subject to separate professional and judicial requirements.

Court Reporting Requirements

New Jersey has two important regulatory frameworks: state certification of court reporters and Judiciary certification of independent transcribers who prepare transcripts from electronically recorded proceedings.

Important requirements include:

Court reporter certification: The New Jersey State Board of Court Reporting regulates certified court reporters under N.J.S.A. 45:15B and N.J.A.C. 13:43.
Professional standards: Certified reporters must comply with applicable standards concerning accurate verbatim records, impartiality, transcript certification, and professional conduct.
Credential identification: Court reporters must use their appropriate professional title and certification or registration number on official documents as required by regulation.
Judiciary-certified transcribers: New Jersey courts separately certify independent contractors to prepare transcripts from electronically recorded court proceedings.
Transcriber qualifications: Applicants must meet educational requirements, pass a transcription examination and written test, and successfully complete a conditional certification period involving transcript review.
Transcript formatting: Judiciary-certified transcribers must follow the Judiciary’s prescribed transcript formatting requirements.
Professional conduct: The Judiciary Transcriber Manual incorporates a Code of Professional Conduct governing certified transcribers.
Disciplinary oversight: The Transcriber Certification Board may suspend or revoke certification for specified violations.
Official transcripts: Transcripts prepared from court recordings must comply with the Judiciary’s certification, accuracy, formatting, and submission requirements.

On August 20, 2024, the Administrative Office of the Courts issued Directive #08-24, implementing a revised Judiciary Transcriber Manual and strengthening professional oversight of certified transcribers.

Important distinction: New Jersey expressly permits qualified independent contractors to prepare official transcripts from electronic court recordings. However, these contractors must satisfy Judiciary certification and conduct requirements. That authorization does not automatically extend to unapproved AI transcription services or permit confidential recordings to be processed without appropriate authorization.

Scopists assisting New Jersey reporters or certified transcribers should clarify the scope of their work, the responsible professional’s supervision, and any restrictions on third-party access to recordings or transcript materials.

Official Sources

NEW MEXICO

AI-Related Court Policy

The New Mexico Judicial Branch published Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Courts Guidelines, effective May 7, 2026.

The guidelines are listed among the Judicial Branch’s personnel policies. Although their existence and effective date are publicly documented, their full provisions could not be independently confirmed from the publicly accessible listing.

Separately, in 2026, the New Mexico Supreme Court approved a statewide Policy on Access to For The Record (FTR) Real-Time Transcripts.

This policy establishes important safeguards:

Official record distinction: Real-time transcripts generated from court audio are not official transcripts until appropriately reviewed and approved.
Accuracy: Unverified real-time transcripts may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies.
Restricted access: Real-time transcripts are automatically sealed until the Judiciary establishes a secure access system or a court orders otherwise.
Limited disclosure: Authorized recipients may not distribute or reproduce real-time transcripts except as permitted by the policy or court order.
Professional access: Court-approved transcriptionists and contractors may receive access through the planned secure system for preparing final approved transcripts.
Enforcement: Violations may result in loss of access, disciplinary measures, or other authorized action.

Important distinction: The FTR policy expressly applies to court reporters, transcriptionists, and contractors, but it governs access to and use of real-time transcripts rather than categorically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping.

New Mexico’s Judicial Branch AI guidelines and FTR transcript policy should be considered separately when evaluating an AI-assisted transcription workflow.

Court Reporting Requirements

New Mexico regulates official court reporting through the Rules Governing the Recording of Judicial Proceedings, Rules 22-101 through 22-701 NMRA, under the supervision of the New Mexico Supreme Court and its Board Governing the Recording of Judicial Proceedings.

Important requirements include:

Certification: The rules establish qualifications and certification requirements for court reporters and court monitors.
Recognized recording methods: New Mexico courts use both stenographic reporting and authorized digital audio recording.
Official reporting responsibilities: Certified court reporters and court monitors perform distinct duties according to the proceedings being recorded.
Transcript certification: Official transcripts must comply with applicable preparation, signature, and certification requirements.
Court recordings: Digital court monitors maintain recordings and associated logs as required by the court.
Transcript requests: Certified transcripts may be prepared for parties, attorneys, the trial court, or appellate proceedings.
Realtime transcripts: Rule 22-207 addresses expedited and realtime transcript services and distinguishes rough realtime transcripts from certified realtime transcripts.
Confidentiality and access: The 2026 FTR policy restricts access to unverified real-time transcripts and prohibits unauthorized disclosure.

In April 2026, the Supreme Court published proposed amendments addressing the official court record, electronic recording, and transcript certification. The proposal included competing recommendations about the status of digital recordings and AI-generated or speech-to-text drafts.

Important distinction: Proposed amendments are not binding rules unless adopted by the Supreme Court. They should not be presented as existing requirements without confirming final approval.

New Mexico’s current framework emphasizes authorized reporting methods, professional certification, accurate transcripts, and restricted access to court records. It does not establish unrestricted permission to use external AI services.

Official Sources

NEW YORK

AI-Related Court Policy

The New York State Unified Court System adopted an Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, effective October 2025, with an updated list of approved tools in May 2026.

The policy applies to judges and nonjudicial court employees, including court-related work performed on personal devices.

Its requirements include:

Approved tools: Judicial personnel may use only generative AI products approved by the Unified Court System.
Mandatory training: Court personnel must complete required AI training before using generative AI for court-related work.
Confidentiality: Confidential, privileged, or sensitive information and court-filed documents may not be uploaded to public-model AI systems.
Human accountability: AI-generated material must be reviewed for accuracy, appropriateness, and bias.
Judicial independence: AI must not replace judicial decision-making.

New York also adopted 22 NYCRR Part 161, effective June 1, 2026. This statewide rule addresses attorneys and parties using AI to prepare court filings. It expressly states that AI use should not be prohibited when existing professional and procedural obligations are satisfied. Routine disclosure of AI use is not required under the statewide policy, although individual courts may adopt additional rules based on its model rule.

On September 17, 2026, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics issued Opinion 26-133, concluding that a judge may use an approved private AI system to summarize court transcripts after completing required training. The judge must verify the summary and remain responsible for all judicial findings and decisions.

Important distinction: These policies do not establish a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals. However, court employees must comply with the Unified Court System’s AI restrictions, and independent professionals must respect applicable confidentiality requirements and court instructions.

Court Reporting Requirements

New York regulates certified shorthand reporting through New York Education Law Article 151 and 8 NYCRR Part 71, while official court transcript preparation is governed by applicable judicial rules and procedures.

Important requirements include:

Professional licensing: Education Law § 7502 reserves the title “Certified Shorthand Reporter” for individuals licensed by the New York State Education Department.
Certification qualifications: Applicants must meet education, experience, examination, and other statutory requirements.
Court reporter distinction: New York distinguishes licensed Certified Shorthand Reporters from court reporters who may perform reporting work without holding that particular state credential.
Transcript formatting: 22 NYCRR Part 108 establishes formatting standards for transcripts prepared by Unified Court System employees and independent-contractor court reporters.
Standard transcript pages: Section 108.3 generally requires 25 numbered lines per page, specified margins, and prescribed identification of the proceedings, appearances, and reporting personnel.
Transcript agreements: Section 108.4 establishes written-agreement requirements covering transcript production, rates, and estimated delivery.
Electronic recording: New York courts also use authorized digital recording systems. Some courts direct transcript requests from electronic recordings to independent transcription services.
Confidentiality: The New York State Education Department identifies confidentiality as an important obligation of Certified Shorthand Reporters. Access to protected court proceedings and records remains subject to applicable restrictions.

Important distinction: New York’s professional licensing law protects the Certified Shorthand Reporter title; it does not require every individual performing court-reporting work to hold that license.

Likewise, the Judiciary’s recognition of independent transcription services does not automatically authorize external AI processing of court recordings. Scopists should confirm the responsible reporter’s instructions, confidentiality obligations, and any applicable court-specific technology restrictions.

Official Sources

NORTH CAROLINA

AI-Related Court Policy

On December 8, 2025, the North Carolina Superior Court for Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County) issued a Revised Administrative Order governing artificial intelligence in superior court proceedings.

The order supersedes an earlier July 2024 order and applies to civil and criminal proceedings in that district.

Significantly, it expressly permits parties and attorneys to use AI for certain litigation-related activities, including out-of-court transcription of depositions and interviews, provided applicable safeguards are satisfied.

Key requirements include:

Human oversight: AI-assisted work must undergo independent human review and verification.
Accuracy: Users must verify AI-generated factual statements, legal authorities, and other material before relying on them.
Confidentiality: AI use must respect privileged, confidential, and protected information.
Responsible technology use: The order distinguishes between public AI services and enterprise or protected systems with stronger safeguards.
Professional accountability: Attorneys and self-represented litigants remain responsible for their submissions and compliance with applicable rules.
Evidence integrity: AI-related evidentiary issues remain subject to existing procedural and evidentiary requirements.

Important distinction: This order governs Superior Court proceedings in Cabarrus County. Its permission for certain AI-assisted transcription activities does not automatically authorize AI processing of official court recordings or transcripts throughout North Carolina.

No statewide North Carolina Supreme Court rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

North Carolina regulates official court reporting and transcription primarily through North Carolina General Statutes §§ 7A-95 and 7A-198, together with Administrative Office of the Courts procedures.

Important requirements include:

Superior Court reporting: G.S. § 7A-95 provides for court reporting personnel to record Superior Court trials when available.
Electronic recording: When court reporters are unavailable, the Administrative Office of the Courts may provide electronic or mechanical recording equipment under statutory procedures.
District Court reporting: G.S. § 7A-198 similarly addresses reporting of civil trials in District Court.
Authorized transcription: Recordings made under these statutes may be transcribed by individuals designated by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Approved transcriptionists: The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts maintains a statewide list of individuals approved to prepare certified verbatim transcripts.
Professional qualifications: Approved transcriptionists must demonstrate the understanding and experience required to prepare certified transcripts under applicable court rules.
Official transcripts: An official transcript may be prepared by the court reporter who attended the proceeding or by an approved transcriptionist working from an authorized court recording.
State ownership of records: Original court-reporting notes, recordings, and other records covered by the statutes are generally property of the State and maintained under the clerk’s custody.
Recording access: Certain audio recordings created by court reporters are not public records and may be disclosed only as authorized by law or court order.

North Carolina distinguishes among official court reporters, digital recording technicians, and transcriptionists. These professionals perform different functions in creating and preserving the court record.

Important distinction: North Carolina expressly recognizes approved transcriptionists who prepare official transcripts from electronic recordings. However, approval to transcribe court proceedings does not automatically authorize uploading recordings to external AI services.

Scopists should confirm the responsible reporter’s or transcriptionist’s instructions, any required approval or supervision, and the confidentiality restrictions applicable to the recording.

Official Sources

NORTH DAKOTA

AI-Related Court Policy

On May 18, 2026, the North Dakota Supreme Court adopted Administrative Order 36, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, establishing a statewide policy for AI use in official court work.

The order authorizes generative AI subject to specific safeguards:

Approved tools: Court employees may use only AI products licensed or approved by the Court System.
Human accountability: Users remain responsible for reviewing and correcting AI-generated content.
Open-box AI systems: Tools that may retain or reuse submitted information are limited to nonconfidential, unrestricted information.
Closed-box AI systems: Court-specific, confidential, exempt, or restricted information may be processed only with approved systems that provide the required data protections.
Professional obligations: Judicial conduct, professional responsibility, and other court policies continue to apply.

The order identifies possible uses such as drafting, summarizing documents, checking grammar, organizing information, and conducting preliminary research.

On June 1, 2026, the Court System also issued a Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for attorneys, self-represented litigants, and the public.

The notice confirms that AI use in North Dakota court matters is not prohibited, but users must independently verify legal authorities, factual assertions, and other AI-generated content. AI use alone does not ordinarily require disclosure in court filings, although particular rules or orders may require it.

Important distinction: Administrative Order 36 governs AI use for official court work. It does not provide unrestricted permission for independent scopists to process court recordings with external AI services, nor does it categorically prohibit AI-assisted transcript editing.

Court Reporting Requirements

North Dakota governs official court reporting primarily through Supreme Court Administrative Rules 39 and 40 and North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.

Important requirements include:

Recording methods: Administrative Rule 39 requires district court proceedings to be preserved through authorized audio recording, video recording, or stenographic shorthand notes, subject to specified exceptions.
Recording standards: Electronic recording software must meet minimum standards established by court administrative policies.
Preservation: Shorthand notes must be filed with the district court clerk, while electronic recordings and associated annotations must be maintained in the recording system.
Contracted transcription: Rule 39 permits court employees and individuals under contract with the court to access recordings or notes when assigned to prepare transcripts.
Other authorized transcribers: If the original court personnel cannot prepare a transcript, the court may authorize another person to access the recording or notes.
Transcript certification: Rule 39 requires transcripts to be certified by the person preparing them in accordance with Appellate Rule 10.
Transcript formatting: Appellate Rule 10 requires numbered lines, generally 25–27 lines per page, appropriate margins, separate lines for questions and answers, and witness and exhibit indexes.
Electronic filing: Appellate transcripts must be filed in PDF format under the applicable appellate procedures.
Official record: Administrative Rule 40 provides that the written transcript, rather than a copy of the audio recording, is ordinarily the official record of the proceeding.
Confidentiality and access: Rule 40 restricts access to certain recordings, including confidential proceedings and protected testimony.

Important distinction: North Dakota expressly permits authorized individuals other than the original reporter to prepare and certify transcripts from electronic recordings. Appellate Rule 10’s explanatory note confirms this arrangement.

However, authorization to prepare a transcript does not automatically authorize disclosure of court recordings to third-party AI services. Court approval, applicable AI policies, and confidentiality restrictions remain important.

Official Sources

OHIO

AI-Related Court Policy

The Supreme Court of Ohio maintains an Artificial Intelligence Resource Library providing guidance for judges, court personnel, and attorneys on the responsible use of AI.

The library includes the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct’s 2026 Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers and identifies existing professional and judicial conduct rules relevant to AI.

Important considerations include:

Human oversight: Judges must exercise independent judgment and may not delegate judicial decision-making to AI.
Accuracy: Attorneys must verify AI-generated legal authorities and factual representations before submitting them to courts.
Confidentiality: Judges and attorneys must protect confidential and nonpublic information when using AI services.
Professional competence: Legal professionals should understand the capabilities, limitations, and risks of AI tools.
Impartiality: Judicial officers must evaluate AI-generated content for bias and other potential problems.
Accountability: Existing judicial and professional conduct rules continue to apply to AI-assisted work.

The Supreme Court expressly states that its resource library is educational and does not constitute an endorsement of AI products or the views expressed in every linked resource.

Important distinction: The resource library and ethics guidance are not themselves a statewide court-reporting AI regulation. No Ohio Supreme Court rule specifically imposing a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Ohio governs the recording of court proceedings and preparation of appellate transcripts through Rule 11 of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio and Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.

Important requirements include:

Authorized recording methods: Superintendence Rule 11 permits stenographic, photographic, audio-electronic, video, and other specified methods of recording court proceedings.
Court supervision: The administrative judge may determine which authorized recording method will be used.
Electronic recordings: Electronically recorded proceedings must be maintained and transcribed as directed by the trial court.
Written appellate transcripts: Appellate Rule 9 generally requires a written transcript of relevant proceedings when necessary for appellate review, regardless of whether the original proceedings were recorded stenographically, by audio, or by video.
Transcript certification: Appellate Rule 9 establishes requirements for preparing and certifying transcripts included in the appellate record.
Transcript formatting: Appellate Rule 9 specifies requirements for transcript organization, formatting, and electronic submission.
Record corrections: Appellate Rule 9(E) provides procedures for correcting or supplementing the record when disputes arise about what occurred in the trial court.
Local procedures: Individual Ohio courts may establish additional requirements for court-reporting services, recording access, transcript requests, and preparation.

Ohio does not have a comprehensive statewide court-reporter licensing system comparable to the certification programs used in some other states. Court reporter qualifications and employment arrangements may instead depend on the court, position, and applicable local requirements.

Important distinction: Ohio recognizes multiple official recording methods, but authorization to record proceedings does not automatically permit unrestricted AI transcription or disclosure of recordings to third-party services.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions and any applicable court requirements concerning accuracy, transcript certification, confidentiality, and access to recordings.

Official Sources

OKLAHOMA

AI-Related Court Policy

On March 23, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an order concerning generative artificial intelligence (2026 OK 19).

The Court stated that it does not discourage AI use in Oklahoma courts, provided that use complies with existing legal and ethical standards.

The order establishes three important principles:

Responsible use: Generative AI may be used in connection with court filings, subject to applicable legal and ethical obligations.
No general disclosure requirement: The Supreme Court does not require disclosure of AI assistance in legal filings.
Human accountability: Individuals filing documents remain responsible for their contents and accuracy.

Separately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals adopted Rule 1.17, effective February 18, 2026. This rule requires individuals using generative AI to draft documents filed in that court to verify AI-produced or AI-modified content. Violations may result in sanctions.

Important distinction: These authorities govern AI-assisted court filings. They do not specifically regulate AI-assisted scoping or establish a blanket prohibition on transcript editing with AI.

Court Reporting Requirements

Oklahoma regulates certified shorthand reporters through Title 20 of the Oklahoma Statutes, particularly §§ 106.3B, 106.4, and 1501–1513, and the Rules of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters.

Important requirements include:

Certification: The State Board of Examiners administers court-reporter certification, examination, and renewal requirements.
Official court reporters: Section 106.3B establishes qualifications and appointment provisions for official district court reporters.
Reporting duties: Section 106.4 governs official reporting methods, court-reporter duties, and transcript-related responsibilities.
Professional identification: Section 1508 addresses certified reporters’ seals and professional authority.
Continuing education: Section 1503.1 establishes continuing education requirements, subject to applicable amendments.
Professional discipline: The Supreme Court’s rules provide procedures for addressing violations of court-reporting standards.
Transcript accuracy: Official transcripts must be prepared and certified in accordance with applicable reporting laws and court rules.

Two important changes occurred in 2026.

On May 6, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted amendments to the certification and disciplinary rules for court reporters, effective immediately.

On May 12, 2026, the governor approved House Bill 3970, which amended provisions concerning reporting methods, remote availability, transcript orders, certification, and continuing education.

On October 8, 2026, legislators also discussed a proposed courtroom audio/video recording pilot intended to address court-reporter shortages. The proposal would supplement—not replace—court reporters, who would continue to certify official transcripts. This was a legislative discussion, not an enacted statewide recording program.

Important distinction: Oklahoma’s 2026 reforms recognize evolving court-reporting technology while maintaining professional responsibility for official transcripts. They do not independently establish unrestricted permission to process confidential court recordings through external AI services.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions and applicable requirements concerning transcript accuracy, supervision, certification, and confidentiality.

Official Sources

OREGON

AI-Related Court Policy

The Oregon Judicial Department has published a notice warning about sanctions for submitting fabricated legal authorities produced by artificial intelligence.

The notice, available through the Oregon appellate courts’ resources for self-represented litigants, reinforces the importance of verifying AI-generated legal research and court filings.

Oregon’s Judicial Branch strategic planning also identifies responsible use of emerging technologies, including AI, as an institutional priority.

Relevant considerations include:

Accuracy: AI-generated legal citations and factual assertions must be verified before submission to a court.
Human accountability: Attorneys and litigants remain responsible for the documents they file.
Confidentiality: Court records and recordings remain subject to applicable access restrictions.
Judicial oversight: Adoption of emerging technologies must be consistent with court policies and procedures.

Important distinction: The appellate courts’ notice addresses fabricated legal authorities, not transcript preparation. No publicly identified statewide Oregon Judicial Department rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing was found in the official sources reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Oregon regulates official court reporting through Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 8.340–8.360 and certified shorthand reporting through ORS §§ 8.415–8.455.

Important requirements include:

Authorized recording methods: ORS 8.340 permits accurate shorthand or machine-generated notes and audio recordings made under State Court Administrator policies.
Certified stenographic reporters: When a party arranges stenographic reporting of an electronically recorded circuit court proceeding, the reporter must hold qualifying state or nationally recognized certification.
Official record: A privately arranged stenographic record may become the official record for appellate transcription when all parties agree, subject to statutory requirements.
Transcript preparation: ORS 8.350 requires full and accurate written transcripts to be prepared from official notes or audio recordings when properly requested.
Transcript certification: ORS 8.360 recognizes certified transcripts as presumptively accurate records of the proceedings.
Court-authorized transcription: Under specified circumstances, including when the original official reporter has left the position, a competent person acting under court direction may prepare and certify a transcript.
Professional certification: ORS 8.415–8.455 establishes certification standards for stenographic and voicewriting reporters and protects the Certified Shorthand Reporter designation.
Private transcription services: Oregon circuit courts routinely use professional transcribers to prepare written transcripts from official digital recordings.
Appellate transcripts: For appeals, transcript coordinators arrange transcription of designated proceedings under applicable appellate procedures.
Confidentiality: Access to recordings and transcripts may be restricted in juvenile, adoption, and other protected proceedings.

Important distinction: Oregon recognizes professional transcription of court audio recordings, including work performed by private transcribers. However, authorization to prepare a transcript does not automatically authorize uploading recordings or confidential transcript materials to an external AI service.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s or transcriber’s instructions, applicable court procedures, and requirements for accuracy, certification, and confidentiality.

Official Sources

PENNSYLVANIA

AI-Related Court Policy

On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted an Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel, effective December 8, 2025.

The statewide policy permits judicial officers and Unified Judicial System personnel to use generative AI for certain work-related activities, subject to restrictions and professional responsibilities.

Permitted applications may include summarizing documents, preliminary research, and preparing initial drafts.

Important safeguards include:

Human verification: Court personnel remain responsible for the accuracy of AI-generated information incorporated into their work.
Competence: Personnel must understand the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools they use.
Confidentiality: Use of AI must comply with the policy’s information-security restrictions and applicable confidentiality obligations.
Judicial independence: AI cannot replace a judge’s independent judgment, credibility determinations, or decision-making.
Supervision: Judges must ensure that personnel under their supervision understand and comply with applicable AI requirements.
Disclosure: The policy contemplates possible disclosure requirements for AI-assisted work products. The Judicial Ethics Advisory Board’s December 2025 guidance indicated that no general disclosure requirement was then in effect.

On December 10, 2025, the Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Advisory Board issued General Ethics Guidance No. 2-2025, addressing judicial competence, oversight, accuracy, and ethical responsibilities associated with generative AI.

Important distinction: Pennsylvania’s statewide AI policy governs judicial officers and court personnel. It does not establish a categorical prohibition on AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals. However, individuals performing work for the courts may be subject to the policy depending on their role and the applicable court requirements.

Court Reporting Requirements

Pennsylvania regulates court reporting through Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration 4001–4016, which establish statewide standards for creating, preserving, transcribing, and certifying court proceedings.

Important requirements include:

Reporter qualifications: Rule 4004 establishes minimum qualifications for stenographic reporters, voice writers, and electronic court recorders employed or utilized by courts.
Reporting proficiency: Stenographic and voice-writing reporters generally must demonstrate 95% accuracy at specified reporting speeds, including 225 words per minute for question-and-answer testimony.
Continuing qualifications: Court reporters must meet applicable periodic requalification requirements, including continuing professional education.
Transcriptionist approval: Rule 4005 requires the president judge to approve any person or organization employed or utilized by a court as a transcriptionist.
Professional responsibilities: Rule 4006 makes court reporting personnel officers of the court and requires compliance with court regulations, orders, and professional standards.
Transcript preparation: Rule 4007 governs requests for transcripts, while Rules 4008–4009 address transcript charges and local procedures.
Transcript formatting: Rule 4010 generally requires at least 25 lines per paper transcript page, specified margins, separate question-and-answer lines, and prescribed electronic transcript formatting.
Certification: Rule 4013 establishes transcript certification requirements.
Privacy: Rule 4014 addresses redaction of personal data identifiers.
Record preservation: Rules 4015–4016 govern ownership, storage, and retention of reporting notes and related materials.

Of particular interest to scopists: The commentary to Rule 4006 expressly identifies contracting with an available scopist who can translate a reporter’s notes as one method of ensuring transcript recovery if the reporter becomes unavailable or incapacitated.

This is an important official recognition of the scopist’s role in preserving access to the court record. It does not, however, independently authorize AI processing of protected transcript materials.

Upcoming Rule Changes — November 1, 2026

On April 21, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted amendments to Rules 4007, 4008, 4009, and 4011, effective November 1, 2026.

The amendments concern transcript requests, costs, local procedures, and delivery deadlines.

Because the effective date had not yet arrived as of October 22, 2026, these changes should be treated as adopted but not yet operative.

Important distinction: Pennsylvania recognizes both court reporters and court-approved transcriptionists, and its statewide rules expressly acknowledge scopists in the context of transcript recovery. Nevertheless, AI-assisted work must remain consistent with applicable court policies, confidentiality restrictions, transcript accuracy standards, and the responsible reporter’s instructions.

Official Sources

RHODE ISLAND

AI-Related Court Policy

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has issued interim guidelines for the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by lawyers and judicial officers.

These guidelines recognize that generative AI may assist with legal research, document drafting, reviewing evidence, and summarizing testimony. They emphasize that AI use must remain consistent with existing professional and judicial responsibilities.

Important considerations include:

Professional competence: Lawyers must understand the benefits, limitations, and risks of AI tools.
Accuracy: AI-generated information must be independently evaluated, particularly legal citations and factual assertions.
Confidentiality: Attorneys must protect client information and consider the privacy and security implications of AI services.
Judicial independence: Judges must retain responsibility for their decisions and must not allow AI to replace independent judicial judgment.
Impartiality: Judicial officers must consider whether AI use could introduce bias or undermine confidence in the courts.
Professional accountability: Existing rules of professional conduct and judicial ethics continue to apply.

On October 22, 2024, the Chief Justice established a Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts through Executive Order 2024-03. Its responsibilities included studying AI’s impact on professional conduct, judicial conduct, evidence, and court administration.

Important distinction: The interim guidelines address lawyers and judicial officers. They are not a statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping or transcript editing. No statewide Rhode Island rule specifically banning AI-assisted scoping was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

Rhode Island regulates court reporting primarily through Rhode Island General Laws Title 8, Chapter 5, together with Judiciary transcript procedures and applicable court rules.

Important requirements include:

Official reporters: Section 8-5-3 authorizes the appointment of stenographic reporters and electronic court reporters in Superior Court.
Recording methods: Section 8-5-5 recognizes stenographic reporting and electronic recording in Superior Court, Family Court, District Court, and the Traffic Tribunal.
Transcript preparation: Section 8-5-5 requires transcripts or reproductions of proceedings when ordered by the court or properly requested under the statute.
Authorized reproduction: For electronic recordings, the person who made the recording or another person designated by the court may be directed to reproduce the recording and certify its authenticity.
Transcript charges: Section 8-5-5 provides statutory rates for reporter-prepared transcripts, including $3.50 per original page and $2.00 per copy page.
Court-specific procedures: The Judiciary maintains separate transcript-request procedures for Superior, Family, and Workers’ Compensation Courts and for District Court and Traffic Tribunal proceedings.
Contract transcription: The Judiciary’s published procedures direct District Court and Traffic Tribunal transcript requests through a designated transcription vendor.
Record accuracy: The Judiciary states that court reporters and court recorders are responsible for producing a verbatim, true, complete, and accurate record of proceedings.
Freelance record retention: Section 8-5-4.1 establishes retention periods for freelance reporters’ notes and recordings, including seven years for fully transcribed proceedings and ten years for untranscribed or partially transcribed proceedings, subject to statutory exceptions and court orders.
Grand jury confidentiality: Section 8-5-6 requires reporting personnel assigned to grand jury proceedings to take an oath of secrecy and deliver transcripts or recordings as directed by the attorney general.

Rhode Island’s court-reporting statutes emphasize court appointment, authorized recording methods, accurate transcription, and judicial control of official records rather than establishing a general statewide licensing requirement for all freelance scopists.

Important distinction: Rhode Island expressly recognizes electronic court recording and court-designated personnel who reproduce recordings. However, authorization to prepare or reproduce court records does not automatically permit their disclosure to third-party AI systems.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions, any applicable court or vendor requirements, and restrictions concerning confidentiality, accuracy, and record handling.

Official Sources

SOUTH CAROLINA

AI-Related Court Policy

On March 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued an Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, establishing statewide requirements for judicial officers and employees of the South Carolina Judicial Branch.

The Judicial Branch reaffirmed the policy in a public notice dated August 15, 2025.

Important requirements include:

Approved AI tools: Judicial officers and employees may use only generative AI tools approved by the Supreme Court or South Carolina Court Administration when performing Judicial Branch duties.
Approved devices: AI tools used for court work must be accessed through approved devices. Personnel may not circumvent this requirement by using personal devices.
Human oversight: AI-assisted drafting and other work require direct human supervision and approval.
Accuracy: AI-generated information must not be assumed accurate or relied upon as the sole basis for professional or judicial decisions.
Confidentiality: AI may not be used to process or analyze confidential court records, privileged information, or privileged communications unless expressly authorized and consistent with applicable security policies.
Supervisory authority: Supervisors may further restrict or prohibit AI use by personnel under their supervision, even when a particular tool has been approved.
Accountability: Violations may result in corrective or disciplinary action.

The policy expressly states that it does not specifically govern AI use by outside attorneys and litigants. However, those individuals remain responsible for the accuracy of their work and for protecting confidential information.

Important distinction: This is a binding internal Judicial Branch policy, not a statewide prohibition on AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals. However, reporters or transcriptionists working for the Judicial Branch must determine whether the policy applies to their work and obtain any required authorization before using AI with court materials.

Court Reporting Requirements

South Carolina regulates official court reporting primarily through South Carolina Appellate Court Rule 607, the South Carolina Court Reporter Manual, and South Carolina Code of Laws Title 14, Chapter 13.

Important requirements include:

Coverage of reporters and transcriptionists: Rule 607 applies to proceedings in Circuit Court, Family Court, and before masters-in-equity. It expressly covers Judicial Branch employees, contractors, and privately retained court reporters or transcriptionists.
Transcript preparation: Rule 607(c) requires transcripts to be prepared according to the Court Reporter Manual published by the Office of Court Administration.
Transcript requests: Rule 607(b) establishes written request procedures, including notice to the parties and acknowledgment of the request within five business days.
Delivery deadlines: Rule 607(d) generally requires delivery within 60 days of the transcript request, subject to applicable extensions and special procedures.
Transcript fees: Rule 607(h) establishes fees for Judicial Branch reporters and transcriptionists. Private reporters retained by the parties may negotiate their fees.
Official transcript designation: When both a private reporter and a Judicial Branch reporter or transcriptionist prepare a transcript, the Judicial Branch transcript is the official transcript.
Recording retention: Rule 607(i) generally requires primary and backup recordings to be retained for at least five years after the proceeding. Recordings of transcribed proceedings must also be retained for at least one year after delivery of the original transcript, even when that extends the retention period.
Accuracy challenges: The recording-retention requirements help preserve the ability to challenge transcript accuracy.
Statutory recordkeeping: Section 14-13-20 assigns official reporters responsibility for compiling, indexing, filing, and safeguarding court-reporting records.
Compliance: Willful failure to comply with Rule 607 may constitute contempt of court.

The Court Reporter Manual provides additional instructions concerning transcript preparation, formatting, proofreading, certification, and related procedures.

Important distinction: South Carolina expressly includes private reporters and transcriptionists within Rule 607’s requirements. This makes compliance with the Court Reporter Manual particularly important for independent professionals preparing transcripts of covered proceedings.

The state’s recognition of transcriptionists does not automatically authorize uploading recordings, rough drafts, or confidential transcript materials to external AI services.

Scopists should obtain instructions from the responsible reporter, preserve transcript accuracy, and follow applicable court requirements concerning confidentiality, recordings, transcript preparation, and delivery.

Official Sources

SOUTH DAKOTA

AI-Related Court Policy

The South Dakota Unified Judicial System (UJS) has published Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidance addressing the safe and ethical use of AI by judicial system employees.

The guidance recognizes potential benefits of generative AI while establishing expectations for responsible use in court-related work.

Examples of identified AI uses include drafting communications, summarizing documents, organizing notes, improving grammar, conducting preliminary research, and organizing information.

Important considerations include:

Authorized use: During work hours, UJS employees may use AI for work-related purposes. Personal use must comply with applicable state technology policies.
Human oversight: AI-generated content should be reviewed and verified rather than accepted as automatically accurate.
Confidentiality: Court personnel must consider information-security requirements and avoid exposing protected judicial information through inappropriate AI tools.
Professional accountability: AI assistance does not eliminate responsibility for the accuracy and appropriateness of court-related work.
Judicial independence: Existing judicial ethics requirements continue to govern judicial decision-making.

The guidance is directed toward UJS employees. It should not be interpreted as unrestricted permission for outside contractors to process court recordings through generative AI systems.

Important distinction: No publicly identified statewide South Dakota Supreme Court rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals was found in the official authorities reviewed.

Court Reporting Requirements

South Dakota governs the preparation and certification of court transcripts through South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 15-15-7 through 15-15-9, together with judicial administration requirements.

Important provisions include:

Official record: Section 15-15-9 recognizes transcripts prepared by official court reporters, court recorders, and freelance reporters under contract with the Unified Judicial System as part of the official record.
Transcript certification: The reporter must transcribe and certify the portions of proceedings required by court rule or order.
Transcript requests: A party requesting a transcript must agree to pay the applicable fee. Upon completion, the reporter files an electronic transcript with the clerk and provides the requesting party with a paper or electronic copy.
Certified accuracy: Section 15-15-7 requires transcripts prepared from a reporter’s notes to be certified as correct.
Transcript fees: Section 15-15-7.1 establishes a fee of $3.60 per original page and $0.65 per copy page for transcripts prepared from a court reporter’s notes.
Court administration: Section 16-2-21 authorizes presiding judges to arrange for proceedings to be reported by court reporters or other authorized methods.
Reporter compensation: Section 16-2-23.1 permits court reporters to retain certain authorized fees for reporting testimony and preparing transcripts.
Administrative hearings: Section 1-26-32.4 requires the reporter or agency to certify the correctness of original transcripts and copies prepared for appeals from contested administrative proceedings.

South Dakota’s Unified Judicial System employs both official court reporters and computer-assisted court recorders. These roles support different methods of preserving proceedings.

The statutory provisions reviewed do not establish a general statewide licensing requirement for independent scopists. However, court employment, contractual assignments, and particular reporting duties may carry additional qualification and procedural requirements.

Important distinction: South Dakota expressly recognizes freelance reporters working under contract with the Unified Judicial System and permits authorized recording methods beyond traditional stenography.

That recognition does not automatically authorize outside AI processing of recordings, reporter notes, or confidential transcripts.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions, verify transcript accuracy against the authorized record, and comply with applicable confidentiality and court technology requirements.

Official Sources

TENNESSEE

AI-Related Court Policy

The Tennessee Supreme Court has established a Court Technology Committee to examine technology affecting the state’s judicial system, including emerging artificial intelligence applications.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts has also reported judicial participation in national discussions concerning AI, cybersecurity, and court technology.

However, no publicly available, statewide Tennessee Supreme Court policy specifically governing generative AI use by court reporters or scopists was identified in the official sources reviewed.

Existing professional and procedural obligations remain relevant:

Accuracy: AI-assisted transcript work must preserve the verbatim record and satisfy applicable certification requirements.
Confidentiality: Court recordings, testimony, and other protected materials must be handled consistently with court orders and applicable legal restrictions.
Professional responsibility: AI assistance does not transfer responsibility for the final transcript away from the person required to prepare or certify it.
Court authorization: Use of AI with official recordings should not be assumed permissible merely because a recording or transcript is available electronically.

In April 2026, attorneys submitted public comments to the Tennessee Supreme Court proposing consideration of AI-enabled legal assistance as part of broader legal-services regulatory reform. Those comments were proposals from outside parties, not adopted Supreme Court policy.

Important distinction: The official authorities reviewed do not establish a statewide ban on AI-assisted scoping. They also do not establish unrestricted permission to process court recordings or confidential testimony through external AI services.

Court Reporting Requirements

Tennessee regulates professional court reporting through the Tennessee Court Reporter Act of 2009, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 20-9-601 through 20-9-619, together with court rules and Administrative Office of the Courts procedures.

Important requirements include:

State licensing: Tennessee generally requires individuals practicing court reporting to hold a state court reporter license, subject to statutory exemptions.
Recognized reporting methods: The licensing framework encompasses machine shorthand, manual shorthand, voice writing, and qualifying electronic reporting.
Licensing examinations: Under § 20-9-609, applicants must demonstrate qualifying national certification through NCRA, NVRA, or AAERT examinations, as applicable to their reporting method.
License renewal: Court reporter licenses are valid for two years. The state generally requires 20 hours of continuing education during the renewal cycle.
Official reporter exemptions: Certain reporters paid exclusively by the federal government or the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts are exempt when performing specified official duties. Those exemptions do not automatically extend to outside freelance assignments.
Temporary licenses: Section 20-9-614 provides for temporary licensing under specified conditions.
Appellate transcripts: Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 governs preparation of the appellate record, including transcripts of stenographic or other substantially verbatim recordings.
Transcript accuracy: Rule 24 requires an appellate transcript sufficient to provide a fair, accurate, and complete account of the proceedings relevant to the appeal.
Transcript certification: Rule 24 provides for certification of the appellate transcript by the appellant, appellant’s counsel, or reporter, as applicable.
Official electronic recordings: Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 26 governs authorized electronic recording of court proceedings and the use of those recordings in appellate records.
Court reporting procedures: The Administrative Office of the Courts maintains reporting manuals, transcript payment procedures, and instructions for digital recording of criminal proceedings.

Of particular interest to scopists: Tennessee’s licensing requirements apply to the statutory practice of court reporting. The statutes reviewed do not establish a separate statewide license specifically for individuals performing scoping or proofreading services under a responsible reporter’s direction.

However, an individual who independently undertakes duties constituting regulated court reporting may need a license, regardless of the job title used.

Important distinction: Tennessee recognizes electronic recording and transcription as part of its court-reporting framework, but those methods do not eliminate requirements concerning professional qualifications, transcript accuracy, certification, and confidentiality.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions and confirm that any proposed AI processing complies with applicable court orders, contractual obligations, and information-security requirements.

Official Sources

TEXAS

AI-Related Court Policy

Texas has court-specific standing orders addressing generative artificial intelligence, particularly its use in legal filings. These orders should not be confused with a uniform statewide prohibition on AI-assisted court reporting or scoping.

Examples include:

Angelina County: A September 4, 2026, standing order for the 159th and 217th District Courts addresses generative AI use by attorneys and litigants, emphasizing their responsibility for legal accuracy, confidentiality, and compliance with professional obligations.
Denton County: A standing order governing the county’s Probate Courts addresses AI-generated content and the continuing responsibilities of attorneys and self-represented litigants.

These local orders recognize that AI can produce fabricated authorities, inaccurate information, and other errors.

Important considerations include:

Human verification: Legal professionals remain responsible for verifying AI-generated work.
Confidentiality: Privileged and protected information must be handled according to applicable professional obligations and court orders.
Professional accountability: AI use does not transfer responsibility away from the attorney or other professional submitting or certifying work.
Local requirements: Particular courts may impose additional AI-related obligations through standing orders.
Scope of regulation: An order governing AI-generated legal filings does not necessarily govern the use of AI in preparing a transcript.

Important distinction: No generally applicable Texas Supreme Court rule categorically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping was identified in the statewide authorities reviewed. Nevertheless, local court orders, confidentiality requirements, and professional reporting standards may restrict particular uses of AI.

Court Reporting Requirements

Texas regulates court reporters and court reporting firms through Texas Government Code Chapters 52 and 154, together with the Judicial Branch Certification Commission (JBCC) Rules and the Uniform Format Manual for Texas Reporters’ Records.

Important requirements include:

Mandatory certification: Government Code § 154.101 generally requires individuals engaging in shorthand reporting to hold the appropriate certification, including authorized apprentice or provisional certification where applicable.
Recognized reporting methods: Certification may cover written shorthand, machine shorthand, oral stenography, or another method authorized by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Professional qualifications: Full certification requires passing the certification examination, meeting educational requirements, and completing applicable criminal-history background checks.
Certification renewal: Certifications generally expire at the end of the month of the second anniversary of issuance.
Continuing education: Fully certified reporters must complete 10 hours of continuing education during each two-year certification period, including 2.5 hours addressing ethics, Texas rules, or both.
Court reporting firms: Qualifying court reporting firms must register with the JBCC and comply with applicable regulatory requirements.
Official reporter responsibilities: Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 13 establishes duties relating to the reporter’s record.
Appellate transcripts: Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6 governs the reporter’s record, including its contents, requests, preparation, and correction of inaccuracies.
Transcript formatting: The Uniform Format Manual establishes standards for official and freelance reporters’ records, including formatting, transcript components, and electronic filing.
Transcript certification: Certified shorthand reporters must use the applicable signed certification prescribed by the Uniform Format Manual.
Electronic recording: Texas recognizes authorized electronic court recording in specified circumstances, with separate requirements for preparing and certifying the resulting appellate record.
Professional conduct: Court reporters and reporting firms must comply with applicable ethical and professional standards.

Of particular interest to scopists: Texas law regulates the practice of shorthand reporting and the certification of official records. The sources reviewed do not establish a separate statewide license specifically for individuals performing scoping or proofreading under a responsible reporter’s direction.

However, independent performance of activities legally classified as shorthand reporting may require certification, regardless of the individual’s job title.

The Uniform Format Manual applies to both official and freelance reporters’ records unless otherwise specified. Therefore, scopists assisting Texas reporters should be familiar with its formatting and transcript preparation requirements.

Important distinction: Texas permits technology-assisted reporting and recognizes authorized electronic recordings, but those provisions do not independently authorize uploading court recordings, reporter notes, or confidential testimony to external AI services.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions, preserve transcript accuracy, and comply with any applicable court orders, confidentiality requirements, and professional reporting rules.

Official Sources

UTAH

AI-Related Court Policy

The Utah Judicial Council adopted a Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence on October 27, 2025, establishing statewide requirements for judicial officers and court employees.

The policy builds upon interim AI rules first approved in October 2023 and establishes safeguards for AI use in court-related work.

Important requirements include:

Approved tools: Judicial officers and court employees may use only approved or court-provided AI tools for court-related work or on court-owned devices, with exceptions for routine technologies such as spellcheck and grammar assistance.
Mandatory training: Personnel must complete required AI training.
Judicial approval: Employees using AI to prepare work at a judicial officer’s direction must notify the judicial officer and obtain approval.
Human accountability: AI may assist with tasks but cannot replace human judgment. Users remain responsible for their final work products.
Accuracy: AI-generated content must be independently evaluated because it may contain fabricated information or bias.
Confidentiality: Nonpublic court information and personally identifying information must not be submitted to public AI tools in violation of the policy’s restrictions.
Information security: AI tools are subject to review and approval procedures designed to protect judicial information.

Utah also adopted Rule 707 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, effective March 6, 2026, addressing the admissibility of certain machine-generated evidence. This is an evidentiary rule, not a rule specifically governing court-reporting software or scopists.

Important distinction: The Judicial Council policy governs AI use by judicial officers and court employees. It does not establish a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals. However, court contractors and transcribers must comply with applicable court requirements and restrictions on disclosing official recordings.

Court Reporting Requirements

Utah regulates court reporting through the State Certification of Court Reporters Act, Utah Code Title 58, Chapter 74, and the Utah Code of Judicial Administration, particularly Rules 4-201, 5-202, and 5-203.

Important requirements include:

Digital recording: Rule 4-201 requires court proceedings to be preserved through authorized audio or video recording systems. Certified court reporters may also maintain the record in specified circumstances.
Official transcripts: A transcript prepared and filed by a certified reporter from the reporter’s notes, or by an official court transcriber from an authorized recording, qualifies as an official transcript under Rule 4-201.
Professional certification: Utah Code § 58-74-301 requires state certification to engage in the statutory practice of court reporting, which includes creating a verbatim record through stenography or voice writing.
Certification qualifications: Section 58-74-302 recognizes qualifying national examinations administered by the National Court Reporters Association and the National Verbatim Reporters Association.
2026 statutory amendment: Effective July 1, 2026, Utah amended § 58-74-302 to remove certain former applicant requirements while retaining the professional examination and skill requirements.
Official court transcribers: Rule 5-202 requires approval by the appellate court administrator. An official court transcriber must be a Utah-certified court reporter or work under the direction of one.
Training and qualifications: Official court transcribers must demonstrate satisfactory transcription experience or training, have adequate equipment and support, avoid conflicts of interest, and complete required training.
Strict confidentiality: Rule 5-202 prohibits official court transcribers from retaining or disclosing court audio or video files or transcripts to unauthorized persons. It also restricts communications concerning the proceedings.
Recording problems: An official court transcriber who encounters inaudible or incomplete material must report the problem to the appellate court administrator.
Appellate transcript assignments: Under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 12, the appellate court clerk assigns transcript preparation to the original reporter or an official court transcriber.
Other transcribers: With appellate court approval, the parties may stipulate that someone other than an official court transcriber prepare a transcript from a recording.
Transcript deadlines: Rule 12 generally requires completion and filing within 30 days after satisfactory payment arrangements, subject to authorized extensions.
Transcript certification: The reporter or transcriber must certify that the transcript is a true and correct record of the proceeding or the recording provided.
Transcript formatting: Rule 5-203 establishes requirements for transcript format.

Of particular interest to scopists: Utah expressly permits an official court transcriber to work under the direction of a certified court reporter. However, the transcriber must still satisfy the court’s approval and qualification requirements.

The confidentiality restrictions in Rule 5-202 are particularly important. Authorization to transcribe a recording does not automatically permit uploading that recording, or its transcript, to an outside AI platform.

Important distinction: Utah recognizes both certified court reporters and approved official court transcribers, but the roles are governed by different requirements. Scopists should confirm their responsibilities with the supervising reporter and ensure that any technology used complies with the applicable court rules and confidentiality restrictions.

Official Sources

VERMONT

AI-Related Court Policy

No publicly available, statewide Vermont Supreme Court policy specifically governing generative AI use by court reporters, transcriptionists, or scopists was identified in the official authorities reviewed.

Vermont’s existing court-recording and transcript laws remain applicable regardless of whether AI-assisted technology is used.

Important considerations include:

Accuracy: Transcripts must accurately reflect the proceedings and meet applicable certification requirements.
Human responsibility: A person responsible for preparing or certifying a transcript cannot assume that an AI-generated draft is accurate.
Confidentiality: Court records and recordings remain subject to applicable confidentiality laws, court rules, and judicial orders.
Court authorization: Permission to access or transcribe an official recording does not automatically authorize disclosure to an outside AI service.
Professional accountability: Reporters and authorized transcribers remain responsible for satisfying the duties assigned to them by statute or court direction.

Important distinction: The absence of an identified statewide AI-specific prohibition does not establish that all AI-assisted transcription practices are permitted. Independent scopists should confirm the requirements of the court, responsible reporter, and any applicable confidentiality agreement before using AI tools.

Court Reporting Requirements

Vermont governs stenographic reporting, electronic court recording, and transcript preparation primarily through Title 4, Chapter 19 of the Vermont Statutes, particularly §§ 794, 795, 798, and 803.

Important requirements include:

Reporter oath: Under 4 V.S.A. § 794, an appointed stenographic reporter must take an oath before beginning official duties.
Responsibility for accuracy: Section 794 makes the reporter responsible for the correctness of reports and certified copies prepared personally or under the reporter’s direction.
Verbatim transcripts: Section 795 requires reporters, when directed by the presiding Superior Court judge, to file certified verbatim transcripts within the prescribed time.
Certified stenographic records: Section 798 recognizes the evidentiary status of qualifying transcripts prepared by or under a reporter’s direction and certified as verbatim records of stenographic notes.
Electronic recording: Section 803 authorizes electronic sound or sound-and-video recording of Superior Court and Judicial Bureau proceedings, subject to applicable Supreme Court rules.
Authorized recording operators: A judge may designate a reporter, clerk, court officer, or other court personnel to operate recording equipment. The operator must take the statutory oath.
Authorized transcription: Section 803(c) permits the court to designate the recording operator or any other competent person to transcribe an official recording.
Transcription oath: A person designated to transcribe an electronic recording must swear that the recording has been truly and correctly transcribed.
Legal status of transcripts: Under § 803(d), properly prepared transcripts of electronic recordings may be used for the purposes for which transcripts are accepted under existing law.
Administrative proceedings: Section 801 requires stenographic reporting in certain quasi-judicial proceedings when a party makes the required written request.
Confidential court records: Section 740 requires court-record management and certified-copy procedures to comply with applicable confidentiality laws and rules.
Grand jury secrecy: Under 13 V.S.A. § 5606, unauthorized disclosure of grand jury matters by a person recording or transcribing testimony may result in criminal penalties.

Of particular interest to scopists: Vermont law expressly recognizes work performed under the direction of a stenographic reporter. It also permits a court to designate another competent person to transcribe an official electronic recording.

These provisions recognize that transcript preparation need not always be performed personally by the individual who originally recorded the proceedings.

However, the statutes do not establish a separate statewide license specifically for scopists, nor do they independently authorize AI processing of protected recordings or transcripts.

Important distinction: Vermont’s statutory framework places responsibility for transcript accuracy and certification on the reporter or court-designated transcriber. AI assistance, if otherwise authorized, does not eliminate those responsibilities.

Official Sources

VIRGINIA

AI-Related Court Policy

The Supreme Court of Virginia adopted Rules for Generative AI Use, effective June 6, 2024, and last amended May 7, 2025.

These statewide rules apply to individuals subject to the administrative authority of the Chief Justice and govern generative AI use for Judicial System functions or on court-issued devices.

Important requirements include:

Mandatory training: Covered users must complete the Judicial Learning Center’s AI compliance training and certify that they understand and will follow the rules.
Approved AI tools: The Department of Judicial Information Technology maintains a list of vetted tools. The published appendix identifies Lexis+ AI and Westlaw Precision with AI-Assisted Research.
Other AI tools: Tools not on the approved list may be used only under additional restrictions, including supervisory preapproval where applicable.
Case information: Users may not enter confidential, nonpublic, personally identifying, proprietary, or case-related information into unlisted AI tools. The prohibition on case-related information extends to information that could identify a pending or impending case.
Data retention: Users of other AI tools must activate the strongest available settings to prevent collection and storage of submitted information.
Accuracy: Users must independently verify AI-generated content and may not assume that it is truthful, complete, or unbiased.
Prohibited applications: The rules expressly prohibit specified DeepSeek applications on court-issued devices and certain personal devices used for judicial business.
Human decision-making: AI may not make specified criminal justice decisions without a human decision-maker.
Additional restrictions: Supervisors may impose stricter limitations.

Important distinction: Virginia’s AI rules are binding requirements for covered Judicial System personnel. They do not, by themselves, establish a blanket prohibition on AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals.

However, the restrictions on entering case-related information into unapproved AI systems are especially relevant to anyone performing work subject to the Judicial System’s authority.

Court Reporting Requirements

Virginia regulates court reporting through Code of Virginia Title 17.1, Chapter 10, together with statutes and court rules governing the recording, preservation, and certification of proceedings.

Important requirements include:

Definition of court reporter: Section 17.1-1000 defines a court reporter as a person who records legal proceedings by stenotype or another method permitted by Supreme Court rules and provides an accurate, verbatim written transcript.
Scope of regulation: Section 17.1-1001 applies to qualifying reporting services involving Virginia proceedings, including services provided remotely and certain services involving out-of-state providers.
Impartiality: Section 17.1-1002 restricts certain contractual arrangements, financial advantages, contingent compensation, and other practices that could compromise neutrality.
Transcript integrity: Section 17.1-1002 prohibits manipulation of the format, content, or body of a certified transcript to increase its cost.
Comparable treatment: Section 17.1-1003 requires specified disclosures concerning rates, charges, and terms of reporting services.
Authorized recording: Section 17.1-128 permits circuit courts in civil cases to authorize verbatim recording by a court reporter or court-approved mechanical or electronic equipment.
Record preservation: Section 17.1-128 requires the reporter or designated recording individual to preserve original shorthand notes or other original records for at least five years.
Certified transcripts: Under § 17.1-128, a transcript certified by the reporter or designated recording individual is presumptively a correct statement of the proceedings.
Transcript access: Section 8.01-420.3 requires a reporter covering a proceeding to provide a requested transcript or portion upon payment of the reasonable cost.
Certification as evidence: Section 8.01-420.3 allows a properly certified transcript of earlier testimony to be introduced without requiring the reporter to appear solely to authenticate it.
District Court proceedings: Virginia Supreme Court Rule 7A:4 requires reporters who record General District Court proceedings to be sworn and permits recording devices approved by the judge.

Virginia’s statutes reviewed do not establish a separate statewide occupational license specifically for scopists. Nevertheless, individuals independently performing activities that constitute court reporting must comply with the requirements applicable to that work.

Of particular interest to scopists: Virginia expressly protects the integrity of certified transcripts and recognizes court-authorized electronic recording. AI assistance, where otherwise permissible, does not eliminate the reporter’s responsibility for accurate, properly certified transcripts.

Important distinction: Virginia’s AI rules place particularly strict limitations on the use of case-related information with AI tools that have not been vetted by the Judicial System. Independent scopists should confirm authorization, contractual requirements, confidentiality obligations, and the responsible reporter’s instructions before processing case materials through any external AI platform.

Official Sources

Supreme Court of Virginia — Rules for Generative AI Use (Effective June 6, 2024; Amended May 7, 2025)
Virginia Judicial System — Authorized Use of Artificial Intelligence
Code of Virginia — Title 17.1, Chapter 10, Court Reporters
[Code of Virginia — § 17.1-128, Recording Civil Proceedings and Certified Transcripts](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/

WASHINGTON

AI-Related Court Policy

The Washington State Judicial Information System Committee has published Guidance for Using AI in Courts, addressing the opportunities and risks associated with generative artificial intelligence.

The guidance discusses how courts can use AI responsibly while preserving judicial independence, public confidence, accuracy, and confidentiality.

Important considerations include:

Human oversight: Judicial officers and court personnel remain responsible for reviewing AI-generated work.
Accuracy: Generative AI may produce fabricated legal citations, inaccurate statements, and misleading summaries.
Confidentiality: Courts should assess how AI products collect, retain, and use information before submitting protected material.
Judicial independence: AI must not replace judicial decision-making.
Professional ethics: Existing judicial and attorney ethics requirements remain applicable to AI-assisted work.
Training: Courts should educate judges and employees about AI capabilities, limitations, bias, and information-security risks.
Local procedures: Courts should review existing rules and determine whether additional requirements for AI-generated filings or other uses are necessary.

The guidance is a resource for judicial decision-makers and court administrators. It should not be treated as a statewide court rule expressly authorizing every form of AI use.

Washington judicial committee materials published in September 2026 also discuss potential AI applications in research, document review, proofreading, and court administration. Such discussion materials should be distinguished from formally adopted statewide policies.

Important distinction: No generally applicable Washington Supreme Court rule specifically banning AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals was identified in the official sources reviewed.

However, the absence of an AI-specific ban does not eliminate restrictions on confidential court records, authorized transcription, professional conduct, or the use of external technology services.

Court Reporting Requirements

Washington regulates certified court reporters through the Court Reporting Practice Act, RCW Chapter 18.145, together with General Rule 35, RCW 2.32.240, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Important requirements include:

Protected professional titles: RCW 18.145.010 prohibits individuals without the required certification from representing themselves as court reporters or using specified court-reporting titles.
Definition of court reporting: RCW 18.145.020 defines the practice of court reporting in terms of making a verbatim record through shorthand, machine writing, or stenomask reporting and producing a transcript.
Certification qualifications: RCW 18.145.080 recognizes qualifying national credentials or approved examinations.
Authorized transcriptionists: General Rule 35 permits official certified Superior Court transcripts to be prepared by certified court reporters, court employees whose duties include transcription, or transcriptionists approved by the court.
Transcriptionist qualifications: Unless otherwise ordered, General Rule 35 requires an authorized transcriptionist to hold qualifying court-reporter certification, AAERT certification, or proof of one year of supervised mentorship with a certified reporter or authorized transcriptionist.
Court approval: Each Superior Court determines who may approve transcriptionists for that jurisdiction and may impose additional qualifications.
Transcript certification: General Rule 35 requires the reporter or authorized transcriptionist to certify the transcript’s accuracy, receipt of the recording from the trial court, and absence of specified conflicts of interest.
Transcript requests: RCW 2.32.240 requires an official reporter, certified reporter, or authorized transcriptionist to prepare, or cause to be prepared, a full and accurate transcript when properly requested.
Appellate transcripts: Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.2 governs preparation of the verbatim report of proceedings for appellate review.
Video recordings: The Administrative Office of the Courts states that only a court-approved transcriber may prepare an official verbatim report from videotaped proceedings.
Transcript formatting: WAC 308-14-135 generally requires certified reporters to use 25 lines per page, nine to ten characters per inch, and 54–60 characters per line unless the court or agency establishes another format.
Professional accountability: RCW Chapter 18.145 provides disciplinary procedures for certified court reporters.

Of particular interest to scopists: Washington’s General Rule 35 expressly recognizes a supervised mentorship pathway for individuals seeking approval as official transcriptionists. This is different from requiring every authorized transcriptionist to hold a Certified Court Reporter credential.

However, court approval is necessary for an individual preparing and filing an official certified Superior Court transcript under that rule.

Important distinction: Washington permits court-approved transcriptionists to prepare official transcripts from electronic recordings, but that authorization does not automatically permit recordings or protected transcript materials to be uploaded to third-party AI services.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions, obtain any required court authorization, and comply with applicable requirements for accuracy, certification, confidentiality, and handling of official recordings.

Official Sources

WEST VIRGINIA

AI-Related Court Policy

No publicly available West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals statewide policy specifically regulating generative artificial intelligence in court reporting, transcription, or scoping was identified in the official sources reviewed.

West Virginia’s existing requirements for transcript accuracy, certification, confidentiality, and court authorization remain applicable when technology assists in preparing a court record.

Important considerations include:

Accuracy: AI-generated transcripts and summaries must be checked against the authorized record rather than assumed to be correct.
Professional responsibility: The reporter or other authorized person responsible for certifying a transcript remains accountable for its accuracy.
Confidentiality: Protected proceedings, including grand jury matters and certain juvenile proceedings, require particular care in handling recordings and transcripts.
Court authorization: Access to an official recording does not automatically permit uploading it to an outside AI service.
Local requirements: Individual courts may impose additional procedures governing recording, transcript preparation, and access to case materials.

Important distinction: No statewide rule categorically banning AI-assisted scoping was identified. However, that does not establish unrestricted permission to process court recordings, reporter notes, or confidential testimony through external AI platforms.

Court Reporting Requirements

West Virginia governs official court reporting primarily through West Virginia Code §§ 51-7-1 through 51-7-8 and the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 80.

Important requirements include:

Appointment of official reporters: Section 51-7-1 authorizes courts to appoint official reporters or use electronic recording methods approved by the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Reporter oath: An appointed official reporter must qualify under oath.
Official shorthand notes: Section 51-7-2 requires official reporters to take full shorthand notes of proceedings they are assigned to report. Those notes have official evidentiary significance.
Transcript preparation: Section 51-7-4 requires the reporter to furnish a transcript of testimony or proceedings upon a proper request.
Transcript formatting: Section 51-7-4 specifies paper size, margins, line spacing, and a minimum of 24 complete lines per page.
Transcript fees: Section 51-7-4 specifies $2.85 per original transcript page and $1 per copy page under the statutory fee provisions.
Certification: Section 51-7-4 requires the reporter to certify the transcript as correct.
Judicial authentication: A transcript certified by both the official reporter and the judge is authentic for the purposes specified by statute.
Filing: The original completed and certified transcript must be filed with the circuit clerk.
Electronic recording: Section 51-7-1 permits electronic reporting methods approved by the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Civil transcript authentication: Rule of Civil Procedure 80 provides that a transcript certified by an official court reporter or authorized reporter is presumptively a correct statement of the proceedings when the required certification identifies whether it covers all or part of the proceeding.
Transcript corrections: Rule 80 permits a party to request correction of an error in a filed transcript. The court determines whether correction is warranted.
Indigent appeals: Sections 51-7-7 and 51-7-8 establish procedures for furnishing transcripts in qualifying criminal, juvenile, and child abuse or neglect proceedings.

Of particular interest to scopists: West Virginia expressly recognizes both traditional shorthand reporting and court-approved electronic recording. Its civil rules also recognize transcripts prepared from mechanically recorded proceedings.

However, the statutes and rules reviewed do not establish a separate statewide occupational license specifically for scopists or provide blanket authorization for independent transcription of official recordings.

The person responsible for certifying the transcript must satisfy applicable court requirements, even when another professional assists with preparation.

Important distinction: AI-assisted editing, if otherwise authorized, does not change West Virginia’s statutory requirements for transcript accuracy, certification, formatting, and filing.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions, verify the transcript against the authorized record, and obtain any required permission before processing recordings or confidential testimony through external services.

Official Sources

WISCONSIN

AI-Related Court Policy

The Wisconsin Court System established an Artificial Intelligence Committee in 2025 to study the responsible use of generative AI and develop guidance for judicial officers, court employees, and other court participants.

The committee began reviewing a proposed interim policy in September 2025. In June 2026, the Director of State Courts reported that the committee was developing sample AI policies.

Two statewide rule petitions are particularly important:

Petition 26-02: Filed February 19, 2026, this proposal sought to create Supreme Court Rule Chapter 76 governing generative AI use in court proceedings. The petitioner withdrew it on September 30, 2026. On October 15, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the withdrawal and dismissed the petition.
Petition 26-06: Filed September 28, 2026, this separate proposal concerns equal access to artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. It remained pending in the court’s published petition records as of October 22, 2026.

Neither petition establishes an adopted statewide AI rule.

Important considerations include:

Accuracy: AI-generated material must be checked against reliable sources and the actual court record.
Confidentiality: Court recordings, sealed records, and protected information remain subject to applicable restrictions.
Human accountability: Reporters and other professionals remain responsible for work they prepare or certify.
Court authorization: Access to official recordings does not automatically authorize processing them through outside AI services.
Local procedures: Courts and judicial administrative districts may have additional technology and record-handling requirements.

Important distinction: No adopted statewide Wisconsin Supreme Court rule specifically prohibiting AI-assisted scoping by independent professionals was identified in the official authorities reviewed. Proposed AI rules must not be described as binding law.

Court Reporting Requirements

Wisconsin governs official court reporting primarily through Supreme Court Rule Chapter 71, Required Court Reporting, together with applicable statutes, appellate procedures, and judicial administration policies.

Important requirements include:

Verbatim recording: SCR 71.01 generally requires a verbatim record of circuit court proceedings, subject to specified exceptions.
Authorized reporting methods: SCR 71.01(3) recognizes stenographic reporting, voice reporting, monitored digital audio recording, and other methods approved by the Director of State Courts.
Ownership of recordings: Under SCR 71.03, original stenographic notes, voice recordings, digital audio recordings, and other qualifying verbatim records are part of the court’s records and are not the reporter’s personal property.
Official transcript: SCR 71.03 expressly distinguishes the underlying verbatim record from the written transcript. The transcript, rather than the recording or reporter’s notes, becomes the official record of the proceedings.
Transcript preparation: SCR 71.04 provides that a verbatim record need not be transcribed unless required by court rule, statute, or court order.
Transcript filing: The original transcript, whether complete or partial, must be filed with the court and becomes the official record.
Other reporters’ recordings: SCR 71.04(3m) permits a court reporter to transcribe proceedings recorded by another reporter or other person.
Protected proceedings: SCR 71.04 imposes additional restrictions on transcription of certain juvenile and family proceedings.
Transcript certification: Wisconsin Statutes § 757.57 addresses preparation and certification of transcripts by court reporters.
Professional qualifications: Wisconsin’s court system establishes separate hiring qualifications for stenographic, voice-writing, and digital court reporters.
Freelance reporting: Wisconsin’s nine judicial administrative districts separately contract for freelance court-reporting services when needed.
Transcript redaction: The Wisconsin Court System provides procedures for requesting redaction of protected information from filed transcripts. The court reporter performs the authorized redaction.

Wisconsin’s official court-reporter employment standards recognize qualifying court-reporting education or professional credentials, including NCRA’s Registered Professional Reporter and NVRA’s Certified Verbatim Reporter credentials, for stenographic and voice-writing positions.

Digital court reporters have separate hiring qualifications.

Of particular interest to scopists: SCR 71.04(3m) expressly permits a court reporter to transcribe proceedings originally recorded by another person. This recognizes that the individual preparing the transcript need not always be the individual who created the original verbatim record.

However, this provision does not establish independent authority for an unapproved scopist to certify an official transcript or disclose court recordings to external AI services.

Important distinction: Wisconsin recognizes several recording technologies, but the completed transcript must comply with applicable court requirements. AI-assisted editing, if otherwise authorized, does not change the legal status of the official transcript or the responsibility for its accuracy.

Official Sources

WYOMING

AI-Related Court Policy

The Wyoming Judicial Branch Strategic Plan for FY 2025–2028 identifies responsible artificial intelligence use as a technology priority.

One of its objectives is to develop clear parameters and procedures for responsible AI use within the Judicial Branch, promote public trust, and ensure appropriate applications of the technology.

The Wyoming Judicial Council has also discussed artificial intelligence in court administration, including potential uses in forms automation and the need to evaluate rapidly changing AI technologies.

However, no publicly available statewide Wyoming Supreme Court rule specifically prohibiting or authorizing AI-assisted scoping was identified in the official sources reviewed.

Important considerations include:

Accuracy: AI-generated transcript drafts must be checked against the actual proceedings and corrected before certification.
Human accountability: The official reporter or court-designated transcriber remains responsible for meeting transcript requirements.
Confidentiality: Court recordings, protected proceedings, and restricted case information must be handled in accordance with applicable access rules.
Technology security: External AI services may retain or process submitted information, creating potential confidentiality and data-security concerns.
Court authorization: Permission to prepare a transcript does not automatically authorize uploading official recordings or reporter notes to a third-party AI service.
Local requirements: Court-specific instructions, contracts, and judicial orders may impose additional restrictions.

Important distinction: Wyoming’s strategic plan and Judicial Council discussions demonstrate an interest in responsible AI adoption. They are not themselves binding statewide AI rules governing independent scopists.

Court Reporting Requirements

Wyoming regulates official court reporting primarily through Wyoming Statutes §§ 5-3-401 through 5-3-410, Rule 908 of the Uniform Rules for District Courts, and the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Important requirements include:

Official reporter appointments: W.S. § 5-3-401 establishes official court reporter positions for district court judges.
Reporter duties: Section 5-3-403 requires official reporters to take and preserve stenographic notes and furnish transcripts upon proper request.
Criminal proceedings: Section 5-3-404 requires reporting of criminal district court proceedings, subject to specified exceptions, and addresses transcript preparation.
Record retention: Section 5-3-403 provides statutory retention requirements for original stenographic notes, including circumstances in which records may be destroyed after ten years.
Professional certification: District Court Rule 908 establishes qualifications for official court reporters, including recognized professional certification pathways.
Continuing education: Rule 908 requires official court reporters to satisfy continuing education requirements.
Reporting equipment: Rule 908 places responsibility on official reporters to provide equipment and software necessary for reporting and transcript production.
Appellate transcripts: Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.02 governs the preparation and certification of transcripts for appellate review.
Transcript certification: Rule 3.02(d) requires the official court reporter, or another person designated by the trial court, to certify that the transcript is true and correct.
Transcript formatting: Rule 3.02(d) specifies 8½-by-11-inch pages, a maximum of 25 lines per page, and no more than 10 characters per inch. Condensed transcripts are not accepted by the Supreme Court.
Transcript deadlines: Rule of Appellate Procedure 2.06 generally requires the reporter to file the ordered appellate transcript within 60 days after the notice of appeal, subject to authorized extensions.
Record access: Transcript filing and redaction must comply with the Wyoming Rules Governing Access to Case Records.

Chancery Court Recording and Transcription

Wyoming’s Chancery Court has additional rules that expressly address digital recording and private court reporters.

Under Chancery Court Rule 904, as amended effective March 30, 2026:

Proceedings may be preserved through authorized digital audio recording.
A certified transcript prepared by the designated court reporter constitutes the official court record.
In the absence of a certified transcript, the digital audio recording serves as the official record in Chancery Court.
For appeals to the Wyoming Supreme Court, a digital recording cannot replace a certified written transcript.
A transcript prepared for such an appeal must be certified by a court reporter.

Chancery Court Rule 908 establishes additional certification and continuing education standards for contracted court reporters.

Of particular interest to scopists: Wyoming Appellate Rule 3.02(d) expressly recognizes that a person designated by the trial court, other than the original official reporter, may prepare and certify a transcript.

However, Chancery Court proceedings have their own requirements for reporter certification and the status of digital recordings.

Important distinction: Wyoming permits authorized transcript preparation and recognizes electronic recording in certain courts. These provisions do not establish unrestricted permission for independent scopists to use AI with official court recordings.

Scopists should follow the responsible reporter’s instructions, verify transcript accuracy, and obtain any necessary authorization before submitting court recordings or protected testimony to an external AI platform.