Wonder

Log in

Digital transformation of the Legal captioning market

Delivered June 14th, 2019. Contributors: akshitha, Sagar K., Mayank B., Jane A., Amos A., Niti and

Part
01
of six
Part
01

Court Reporting - Market Size

According to the latest data, there were 14,490 court reporters employed in the US Courts System. The total size of the court reporting market in the US was $2.4 billion in 2017, with an annual growth rate of 4.4%. The largest providers of court reporting services are Sp Wind Down, Inc.; Total Emed, Inc.; Johnson Perry & Associates; Atkinson-Baker, Inc.; Spheris Holding III, Inc.; Webmedx, Inc.; Orange Legal, Inc.; Diamond Reporting, Inc.; Catuogno Court Reporting and S; and Medscribe Info Systems, Inc.

COURT REPORTING — MARKET SIZE

  • The court reporting and stenotype services market size in the US was $2.4 billion in 2017, with an annual growth rate of 4.4%.

OTHER USEFUL INSIGHTS:

  • The US Courts System categorizes court reporting services based on transcript delivery time; such as, Realtime Transcript, Hourly Transcript, Daily Transcript, 3-Day Transcript, Expedited Transcript (7 day), 14-Day Transcript, and Ordinary Transcript (30 day).
  • The pricing of court transcription services varies from $3.05 per transcripted page (Realtime Transcript) to $3.65 for a full transcript delivered within 30 days. Pricing increases based on the speed of transcript delivery.
  • In May 2018, there were 14,490 court reporters employed in the United States.
  • According to the NAICS, key players in the US court reporting market by revenue are Sp Wind Down, Inc.; Total Emed, Inc.; Johnson Perry & Associates; Atkinson-Baker, Inc.; Spheris Holding III, Inc.; Webmedx, Inc.; Orange Legal, Inc.; Diamond Reporting, Inc.; Catuogno Court Reporting and S; and Medscribe Info Systems, Inc.

Research Strategy:

We began our investigation with an inquiry into the relevant database, industry analysis, and news sites. While we were able to locate the total market size for court reporting in the United States, we were unable to identify any detailed, sub-segmentation information on the percentages of transcripts made for court proceedings or transcripts made for depositions and examinations under oath. What information we were able to identify concerned the number of court reporters employed, the pricing of transcripts, and the like.

To locate the required data, we expanded our search first to databases (both government and industry) and market reports (e.g., Market Research, Anything Research, Kentley Insights, IBIS World, Future Market Insights, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Court System, the US Census, and American Fact Finder) containing industry data. As we previously mentioned, most of the information we uncovered through these inquiries was for the number of court reporters and transcript pricing.

Our next step was to identify key firms within the court reporting market to use any publicly available data concerning their clientele as a way of uncovering the requested percentage data. At the very least, we sought to gain an overview of the segmentation data. However, we discovered that most of the entities are, effectively, publishing services that offer no in-depth information on the market they serve.

Our final strategy was to expand the historical scope of our search beyond our limitations for timely references. We then investigated historical trends; transcription segmentation case studies; legal transcription reports; law journals; court proceeding case studies; court reporter association reports (e.g., the National Court Reporter Association, the National Verbatim Reporter Associations, and the US Court Reporter Association); legal transcription services; The Journal of Court Reporting; Harvard; The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, and the Athens Journal of Law. Despite this extensive search, we were unable to locate the requested segmentation information.

Part
02
of six
Part
02

Court Reporting - Use of Digital Tools

According to the American Association for Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT), 85% of US courtrooms were using digital recorders in 2016.


Percentage of Digital Court Reporting:

  • According to AAERT, 85% of US courtrooms were using digital recorders in 2016.
  • In 2014, 70% of the courts in the US made use of digital court reporting technologies.
  • In 2014, courts in 45 of the 50 states in the US were using digital court reporting technologies.
  • In 2013, six US states namely, Alaska, New Hampshire, Indiana, Utah, Oregon, and Vermont used audio digital recording during court proceedings.

Venues where Digital Court Reporting is Used:

Overview of Court Reporting in the US

  • According to the Federal Court Reporting Program: “By law, each session of court and every proceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by one of the judges shall be recorded verbatim by shorthand, stenotype, stenomask, or electronic sound recording equipment. The method of recording may be elected by the district judge."


Research StrategY:

To determine what percentage of all court reporting is done digitally, the research team tried both qualitative research and triangulations. Below is a summary of what we did and did not find, in addition to the various strategies we employed throughout our research:
  • We were able to find information on the percentage of courts using digital reporting technologies in 2014 and 2016.
  • We were also able to find general information on the applications of digital reporting in courts.
  • We were unable to find any recent information on the percentage of courts using digital reporting technologies.
  • We were also unable to find any information on the breakdown of digital transcriptions for court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs.
  • One of the probable reasons for the unavailability of such information could be that the decision to conduct court reporting digitally lies with the district judge, the use of digital court reporting would vary on a case to case basis.
  • It could also be possible that digital court reporting is used for applications such as court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs at varying degrees across the US, based on individual state permissions.

CALCULATIONS
We also tried to calculate the average growth in the percentage of courts using digital reporting.
% of courts using digital reporting in 2014 = 70% 
% of courts using digital reporting in 2016 = 85% 
Thereby, % increase in 2 years = 85% - 70% = 15%
Thereby, % increase in 1 year = 15% / 2 = 7.5%

Now, if we try to add this increase to calculate the value for 2019, we have to apply a growth of 7.5% for each year from 2016 to 2019 (3 years).
Thereby, the percentage of courts using digital reporting in 2019 = 85% (2016) + 7.5% + 7.5% + 7.5% = 107.5%. However, the percentage of courts using digital reporting cannot ever exceed 100% since that is all the courts in the US The reason the suggested approach does not work is that the percent values provided in the findings are for percent adoption of the overall 100% and not the growth rate in the number of courts that use the technology. Thereby, the findings are presented as they were originally for 2014 and 2016 without speculating for 2019.


STRATEGY 1: DIRECT INFORMATION
The research team started by directly searching for any information on the percentage of US court that made use of digital reporting. We came across a report that mentioned that 70 percent of the courts in the United States made use of digital court reporting technologies in 2014. However, the report did not provide any information to calculate the breakdown in terms of court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs.
We continued to search for more recent data and came across an article which stated that 85 percent of US courtrooms have gone digital in 2016. However, the report did not provide any information to calculate the breakdown in terms of court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs. In addition, no other recent reports could be found that could directly provide the requested information.
Then, we started to search for any relevant information on the breakdown of the percentage of transcriptions in terms of court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs. We came across a report that provided generic information on how digital reporting is used in courts for court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs, among others. However, the report did not provide any useful information that can be used to break down the percentage of transcriptions further.
STRATEGY 2: INDUSTRY REPORTS AND MARKET STUDIES
Since we were only able to find relevant information for prior years (i.e. 2014 and 2016), we started to search for any recent industry reports and market studies that would provide more recent information. However, reports published by market research firms including but not limited to Anything Research and Barnes Reports only provided overall information on the US Court Reporting & Stenotype Services Market, which includes digital court recording. However, the report does not detail any specific information on the digital recording segment of the court reporting services market. In addition, the reports did not provide any market share data or trends on whether the use of digital court reporting is increasing as compared to stenograph services.
STRATEGY 3: GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND AGENCIES
Since no complete information could be found through various industry reports and studies, we started to search through various government authorities and agencies that overlook court operations for information on the usage of digital court reporting. The idea here was to search for any database, publication, or press release by government authorities and agencies on the usage of digital court reporting. However, these sources only provided generic information on the use of digital court reporting. The official language regarding court reporting based on the official Federal Court Reporting Program has been provided above.
Further, we came across a report published by the NCSC that provided some information on the usage of digital court reporting in the US in 2013.
STRATEGY 4: PROVIDERS OF DIGITAL COURT REPORTING SERVICES
We then started to search through news articles, press releases, and publications from the providers of digital court reporting services. The idea here was to identify any trends in the usage of digital court reporting in the US that could be used to calculate market share and further break down the data in terms of court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs. However, after checking through numerous providers, only qualitative information on the trends in digital court reporting could be found. None of the articles or press releases provided any useful information regarding the usage of digital court reporting in terms of court proceedings, depositions, and EUOs.
Thereby, after exhausting the above-mentioned strategies, the research team concluded that limited information is available on the percentage of court reporting or transcriptions that are obtained digitally.
Part
03
of six
Part
03

Court Reporting - Growth of Digital Tools

 Alaska, Kentucky, and Utah are US states that have fully implemented digital recording in courts; 41 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, and Colorado, among others, have medium-level digital transcription adoption; and California, New York, and Texas have low-level digital transcription adoption. However, even after exhaustive research in the public domain, we were not able to find the rate of adoption of digital transcription technologies in the US courts or find data points to calculate/triangulate the requested information.

In 2016, RAND Corporation, an American research & public policy analysis company, collaborated with JSTOR⁠—a not-for-profit organization that helps researchers, scholars, and students "discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive"⁠—in publishing a book about improving the US court operations and outcomes using technology. According to this book, comprehensive recent data on the extent of adoption of digital recording of the US court system are not available.

Below are some relevant findings we found:

RELEVANT FINDINGS

  • In 2017, the Court Reporting and Stenotype Services industry in the US had a market size of $2.4 billion, with around 3,089 companies operating in the industry, and the industry had grown at an annual rate of 4.4% over the 2014-2017 period.
  • Digital audio/visual recording methods are prevalent in pockets of courts throughout the United States. In fact, there are some states that are using the process almost exclusively and make little or no use of stenographic court reporters. This is corroborated by the fact that more than 45 states in the US use some form of digital recording, even if it is just for routine legal proceedings in settings like traffic and family court.
  • Some US states that are at the forefront in the adoption of digital audio/visual recording methods in courts include Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Oregon, and Utah; while California, New York, and Texas are the states with low-level of digital transcription adoption. Forty-one states, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, and Georgia, were found to have medium-level of digital transcription adoption.
  •  Alaska, Kentucky, and Utah are examples of US states that have fully implemented digital recording in the courts.
  • Some key players operating in the digital deposition market include Soniclear, Visionary Legal, Veritext Legal Solutions, and For The Record (FTR).

STATE-SPECIFIC FINDINGS

  • The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida has adopted the use of digital audio recording (DAR) for all court proceedings in all divisions effective August 2015. The courtroom technology company that was selected for providing digital transcription services was For The Record (FTR).
  • Florida increased its use of a centralized digital recording in criminal, juvenile, and other state-paid recorded proceedings from 24.7% in 2004 to 55.8% in 2013. As a ramification of this, the number of hours recorded using "shorthand, stenographic machine, computer-aided transcription, or any other manual form of stenographic court reporting has decreased from 29.7 percent to 22.1 percent."
  • In a book titled "Fostering Innovation in the US Court System," which was published by RAND Corporation in 2016, a chapter called "Court Technology and Practice Today" states that a comprehensive recent data on the extent of adoption of digital recording is not available; however, according to a recent survey of Ohio courts, 82% reported having implemented digital recording technology.

YOUR TEAM APPLIED THE FOLLOWING STRATEGY

Our first strategy was to scour through the research reports related to the digital legal transcription industry in the US, such as Market Insider, Forrester Research, Deloitte, McKinsey, IBIS World, and Business Insider, among others. The idea was to check if any of the research companies have provided data on the growth of digital transcription technology in US courts as such reports are a potential source for this kind of data. However, all information found was apropos of the market size of the US Court Reporting and Stenotype Services, the number of court reporters, and the pricing of transcripts. No relevant information related to the growth in adoption of digital transcription technologies for courthouse proceedings in the US or its segmentation could be located.
Next, we looked into various media articles from Forbes, WSJ, Business Insider, Bloomberg, Live Mint, and Reuters; legal blogs, such as Justia, Above the Law, and Law.com, among others; statistical websites, such as Statista; government websites, such as USCourts.gov, American FactFinder, National Center for Courts, and any surveys around digital transcription technology adoption in US courts from Pew Research and Market Radar. All these are potential sources that contain/quote statistics and insights in their analysis of the topic. However, all the information found through these sources was about the adoption rate in a few US states and some major companies who are operating in the digital recording space. Also, most of this data was from 2015 or earlier, and no comprehensive recent data on the extent of adoption of digital transcription technologies in US courts could be located through this strategy.
We changed our research strategy and tried to triangulate the data by looking at the adoption rate in various key US states and then arrive at a number (the national average) by taking an average of state-level adoption rates. We took this research path because the initial search showed that a few state-level statistics regarding the adoption rate of digital transcription services in state courts were quoted in various media articles. However, further research revealed that the data was from 2015 and earlier and was moreover limited to only a few states, which could not be considered representative of the entire US. Hence, the triangulation strategy could not prove fruitful. We have included the state-level findings as part of our state-specific findings.
Lastly, we looked into company filings, such as annual reports, supplemental information, company blogs, and press releases of some of the largest companies—such as Soniclear, Visionary Legal, Veritext Legal Solutions, and For The Record—involved in digital legal transcription technology space in the US. Normally, companies disclose some information regarding the industry they operate in through their filings, especially in their annual reports. Hence, the idea was to check if any of them has provided any information related to the growth in adoption of digital transcription technologies for courthouse proceedings in the US. However, all the information found catered around the products and services of the individual companies with no pertinent information available. Also since most of the companies were private in nature there were no detailed filings available for most of them.

The possible reasons for the information to be missing can be its niche nature or lack of reporting by individual state courts due to which no research or centralized data at US-level exists.
Part
04
of six
Part
04

Court Reporting - Digital Deposition Market (Count)

After doing comprehensive research, we discovered that there is not enough publicly available information to provide the total number of firms that offer digital deposition solution. However, we found data for a broader segment that includes businesses that offer court reporting and stenotype services. We have outlined our findings and strategies below.

Helpful findings

  • According to NAICS, court reporting and stenotype services comprise "establishments primarily engaged in providing verbatim reporting and stenotype recording of live legal proceedings and transcribing subsequent recorded materials."
  • There are 3,089 companies that offer court reporting and stenotype services in the US, based on a 2018 report by Marketresearch.com.
  • IBISWorld reported that there are 4,502 businesses offering stenographic services in the US in 2018.
  • There are 87,135 firms that provide document preparation services in the US in 2019, based on a report by IBISWorld.
  • According to Alexa, there are 54 businesses that offer digital transcription services in the US.

Research Strategy

We were not able to find or estimate the number of unique firms offering digital deposition solutions in the US. In our attempt to answer the request, we implemented the following strategies.

We first searched for market reports, including those from IBISWorld and Marketresearch.com, regarding digital deposition solutions in the US to check for the number of companies offering the service. However, there were no reports specific to digital deposition solution in the US and most of the information found covered vapor deposition, digital transformation market, among others.

Our next strategy was to triangulate the information using the total number of firms and the percentage of digital recording used in the US. For the total number of firms in the country, we examined Census.gov while for the percentage of digital recording, we searched through resources such as American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers Government Relations Committee and the National Court Reporters Association. However, no data was found for the percentage of digital recording in the US. Majority of the information were about percentage of court reporter and percentage of courtrooms in court reporting market. Hence, triangulation could not be performed.

Then, we broadened the scope to find proxy for the number of firms that offer digital deposition solution. Since there are no market reports specific to digital deposition solution, we considered segments related to the said service. From here, we were able to find the number of companies offering court reporting and stenotype services. We then looked for a proxy percentage that would allow us to triangulate the portion of courtroom reporting businesses that use digital deposition, transcription, or recording services. Unfortunately, we did not find any suitable percentage to apply. Therefore, as shown in the helpful findings, we presented the number of companies offering court reporting services to somehow reflect the number of businesses in the digital deposition market as this is the nearest data point available.
Part
05
of six
Part
05

Court Reporting - Digital Deposition Market (Top Players)

Companies offering digital deposition solutions in the United States include Veritext Legal Solutions, For The Record, Soni Clear, Visionary Legal, and Esquire Solutions.

1. Veritext Legal Solutions

  • Veritext Legal Solutions offers deposition and transcription services. Veritext Legal Solutions can instantly convert court testimonies into rough draft hand copies. Services provided by the company include remote deposition recording, transcript synchronization, etc.
  • Veritext has a full spectrum of court reporting and deposition services which include a hard copy transcript, a compact disc (CD) deposition litigation package, and an electronic (digital) version of a court transcript along with scanned exhibits. A PDF format of a court transcript provided by Veritext is considered to be the "official document of record."
  • With its headquarters in Florham Park, New Jersey, United States, the annual revenue of Veritext Legal Solutions is $24 million.
  • The website of Veritext Legal Solutions is accessible via this link.

2. Visionary Legal

  • Visionary Legal Technologies has several products including the Visionary Digital Player (VDP) which is designed to assist with the transcription of any VDR-captured event.
  • The Visionary Digital Recorder (VDR) is equipped with the right tools to digitally record any event. VDR is specially developed to handle court reporting, independent depositions, and several other reporting services.
  • While recording court proceedings, a digital technician can different notes in the available intuitive interface. During playback, the search, point, click and play can be used to go-to any portion of the recorded proceeding.
  • With its headquarters in Addison, Texas, the annual revenue of Visionary Legal Technologies is $15 million.
  • The website of Visionary Legal Technologies is accessible via this link. 

3. Esquire Solutions

  • Esquire Solutions helps its clients to digitally manage and introduce exhibits during a deposition, thereby improving "efficiencies for attorneys and their clients."
  • Esquire Solutions provides court reporting services and technology to help legal firms, insurance companies as well as corporate legal departments to get their depositions effected correctly every time.
  • Regardless of the location a deposition occurs, Esquire Solutions provides a worry-free, personalized experience that results in quick and accurate transcripts.
  • Esquire Digital Exhibits allows clients to eliminate paperwork while collecting and presenting exhibits at the deposition and enjoy greater flexibility and control.
  • Esquire Digital Exhibits also allows clients to upload all of their documents before or during a deposition.
  • Through Esquire Digital Exhibits, clients can attend a deposition from anywhere using their computer or tablet. Users can access, introduce, and even mark exhibits, regardless of their location.
  • With its headquarters in Greater New York Area, East Coast, Northeastern US, the annual revenue of Esquire Solutions is $21 million.
  • The website of Esquire Solutions is accessible via this link. 

4. For The Record

  • For The Record offers its customers access to comprehensive and clear digital court records with an easy-to-use, secured digital court recording. Some features supported by For The Record include playback, annotation, and search tools.
  •  Digital deposition solutions offered by For The Record include portable solutions and fixed on-premises solutions.
  • For The Record allows users to capture, perform playbacks and efficiently utilize court records.
  • The recording made by the company is captured digitally and is the property of the party(ies) that have paid for the recording.
  • For The Record utilizes the world’s leading and highly trusted digital recording software.
  • For The Record offers court deposition, recording, and transcription services across global markets including North America, Europe, and Asia.
  • The annual revenue of For The Record is $9.9 million.
  • The website of For The Record is accessible via this link.

5. SONICLEAR

  • SoniClear provides a digital recording software in four product variations. SoniClear software can convert any Windows computer into "an advanced recording system."
  • The features of SoniClear products need to be optimized for a specific use. The product can be used to record government meetings, business meetings, board meetings, and court sessions.
  • One significant use of SoniClear is for digital court reporting and depositions.
  • With its headquarters in Pasadena, California, the annual revenue of SoniClear is $8 million.
  • The website of For The Record is accessible via this link.

METHODOLOGY

Our research team scoured through the websites of various digital deposition solution providers to verify their services and revenue. Our research methodology was mostly straightforward. The companies included in the study are companies that have an American presence and offer transcription and deposition solutions, recording solutions, as well as video and audio solutions. The basis of inclusion is based on identified companies with the highest annual revenue. We have provided screenshots of the websites of the referenced companies where necessary. All the identified companies offer audio transcription services (they convert audio to text).
Part
06
of six
Part
06

Court Reporting - Technologies

Some examples of digital deposition companies using automated speech recognition (ASR) technologies include Soniclear, Everlaw, Nuance, Sonix, vTestify, and Verbit.


 SONICLEAR 

  • Founded in 1978, the company provides audio and video recording products that are specially designed for government, business, and court reporting.
  • The company offers a complete range of deposition products and services for digital recordings, like recorder systems, software, microphones, video systems, transcription services, among others.
  • The software automatically uploads the recorded content on a cloud server and starts to transcribe the recordings using the latest voice recognition technology. The ASR transcription process takes about an hour to complete.
  • The AI supported intelligence transcription process is capable of recognizing multiple voices with different accents in a recording.

 EVERLAW 

  • The collaborative, cloud-based litigation platform offers a host of features suited for legal deposition services; Everlaw software offer features like Automated transcription, analytic, data visualization, instant translation, predictive coding, speed search, among others.
  • The software can automatically transcribe audio or a video file directly as the user listens to it. Further, the software uses predictive coding to make the audio transcript searchable and integrated with timestamps.
  • Everlaw can automatically convert audio files to text and analyze the deposition files as they are processed; it removes the need for the litigation support teams to hear the entire files.

 NUANCE DRAGON 

  • The Dragon software is specially designed for legal teams to analyze the deposition files. The software offers a next-generation speech engine powered by deep learning technology.
  • Dragon provides high recognition accuracy for dictations in diverse work groups and settings.
  • The software can transcribe recorded notes by the use of Auto-Transcribe Folder Agent (ATFA) to transcribe multiple-batch files simultaneously.

 SONIX 

  • The company enables its legal clients to automatically convert hours of audio or visual recordings into text within minutes. Sonix offers subscription-based services and charges about $6 per recorded hour.
  • Sonix makes use of automated algorithms to identify and segregate the vital information from the deposition recordings; it can process an hour of recording in six minutes.
  • Each word is individually timestamped in the transcript, and users can highlight the important information or add notes to the respective section.

 VTESTIFY 

  • vTestify helps to generate more accurate formal legal transcripts after the deposition has been completed.
  • The video recordings are fed to an AI-powered speech-to-text system that transcribes about 80%-90% of the recording within minutes.
  • The company also offers an innovative editor system that uses two layers of human scopists to deliver files with over 99.9% accuracy. Further, the files are processed to assign speaker names, fix speech-to-text errors, and identify Q&A notes.
  • vTestify offers a secure, audit traceable, temperproof, and locked environment to ensure that data is delivered as per the transcript certification formatting guidelines issued by the federal and state authorities.


 VERBIT 

  • Established in 2017, the startup is based in New York and has a team of more than 7,000 transcribers.
  • Verbit makes use of AI-enabled transcription technology to achieve the fastest turnaround time with the highest accuracy, at the lowest cost.
  • The software offers advanced features that can cancel out noise, identify legal terms, and provide exceptionally accurate court transcripts.

Helpful Insights

  • Some notable startups working in the field of ASR technology to provide accurate digital deposition services include Simon Says, Trint, Otter, Saykara, and Temi.

Did this report spark your curiosity?

Sources
Sources
From Part 01

Court Reporting and Stenotype Services - The 2018 U.S. Market Research Report (Covers 2009-2022 )

marketresearch.com
Publication Year: 2018
Quotes
  • "This report is utilized for a range of strategic purposes, including benchmarking, due diligence, cost cutting, planning, evaluating opportunities, forecasting, streamlining, and gap analysis."
  • " This report is loaded with over 100 insightful data sets, such historical and forecasted industry sales, operating expense details, product line breakdown, financial ratios, benchmarks, wages, profitability, organizational analysis, revenue per employee, state statistics, price inflation, consolidation analysis, firm dynamics, pay ranges for different roles, firm size data, employment, and much more."

Court Reporters

bls.gov
Publication Year: 2018

2019 Court Reporting & Stenotype Services Industry Statistics & Market Research Report - AnythingResearch

anythingresearch.com
Publication Year: 2019

Federal Court Reporting Program

uscourts.gov

NAICS Code: 561492 Court Reporting and Stenotype Services | NAICS Association

naics.com
Publication Year: 2018
From Part 02
i

Preliminary Report of the Intersteno Scientific Committee

intersteno.org
Publication Year: 2014
Quotes
  • "Digital court reporting technologies are used in 70 percent of the courts in the United States and in 45 of the 50 states, and when human beings are properly trained and paired with this state-of-the-art technology, there is no better, more efficient, more cost-effective, or more accurate system available than verifiable digital audio and video systems."

The Digital Courtroom | The Crime Report

thecrimereport.org
Publication Year: 2016
Quotes
  • "While there is no official information on the number of courtrooms nationwide that have switched to electronic recording, data collected by the American Association for Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) shows that 85 percent of U.S. courtrooms have gone digital."
h

Venues where Digital Court Reporting/Recording are Used

huntreporting.com
Publication Year: 2015
Quotes
  • "These range from sophisticated recording systems provided by vendors that are specifically designed for use in a courtroom setting to smaller, portable court reporting systems, which can be utilized for depositions, as well as virtually any type of agency/firm proceeding."

2019 Court Reporting & Stenotype Services Industry Statistics & Market Research Report - AnythingResearch

anythingresearch.com
Publication Year: 2019
Quotes
  • "A vital service the legal industry, court reporting is taking on greater importance as new technologies enable the industry to offer more expansive and highly relevant services to clients. "
  • "Now that cour reporters have adopted and integrated technology, the next challenge is to develop and maintain a capable workforce."

2018 U.S. Court Reporting & Stenotype Services Industry-Industry & Market Report

marketresearch.com
Publication Year: 2017

Federal Court Reporting Program

uscourts.gov
Publication Year: 2019
Quotes
  • "By law, each session of court and every proceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by one of the judges shall be recorded verbatim by shorthand, stenotype, stenomask, or electronic sound recording equipment. "
  • "The method of recording may be elected by the district judge."
n

Utilizing Electronic Digital Recording

ncsc.org
Publication Year: 2013
Quotes
  • "Six of the states, Alaska, Indiana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont, and three of the territories, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico use audio digital recording to make the record in all or most of their general jurisdiction court sessions."
  • "Of the other states using digital recording to make the record in their general jurisdiction courts, New Jersey uses digital recording in approximately 90% of its court sessions, Massachusetts in approximately 40% of its courts, and Minnesota in approximately 25% of its general jurisdiction courtrooms."
  • "Kentucky uses video recording technology in approximately 60% of its general jurisdiction courtrooms."
  • "Many other state and local jurisdictions use digital recording in their limited jurisdiction courts and in some of their general jurisdiction courts."

Top Court Reporting Trends of 2018 - Elite Court Reporting

elitedepo.com
Publication Year: 2018
Quotes
  • "We live in an ever-evolving digital world and one of the perks of this is being able to connect and talk to people living all around the world. This much-improved technology has made its way to the legal realm in the way of internet depositions."
  • "Thanks to internet-streaming capabilities, legal teams, their clients and their experts are able to watch a deponent’s testimony when it’s happening, without being in the room."
  • "Connected through an online server, these individuals are able to view from a remote location a court reporter’s real-time screen as the deposition is happening and send instant messages to members of their team who are present."
  • "Some law firms are choosing to videotape depositions instead of providing a court reporter."

Court Reporters v. Digital Recording and Voice Recognition: A Comprehensive Breakdown

clereporting.com
Publication Year: 2018
From Part 03

Examining Delay: Its Causes, Consequences, and Possible Solutions in the Colorado Court of Appeals

ncsc.org
Publication Year: 2019

United States Bankruptcy Court

flsb.uscourts.gov
n

Trends in State Courts

ncsc.org
Publication Year: 2015
j

Court Technology and Practice Today

jstor.org
Publication Year: 2016
Quotes
  • "Comprehensive recent data on the extent of adoption of digital recording are not available, but in a 2002 survey of federal courtrooms, 18 percent reported being equipped with digital audio recording capabilities (Wiggins, 2004). In a more recent survey of Ohio courts, 82 percent reported having implemented digital recording technology (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)."

Court Reporting and Stenotype Services - The 2018 U.S. Market Research Report (Covers 2009-2022)

marketresearch.com
Publication Year: 2018

Deposition Services | Veritext Legal Solutions

veritext.com

Visionay Legal

visionarylegal.com

PRODUCTS — SONICLEAR

soniclear.com
Publication Year: 2019
n

Court Reporting Industry Outlook Report

ncra.org
Publication Year: 2014

For The Record (FTR) - Digital Court Recording Solutions

fortherecord.com
From Part 04

IBISWorld - Industry Market Research, Reports, and Statistics

ibisworld.com
Publication Year: 2018

Business/Business Services/Office Services/General Transcription

alexa.com
Publication Year: 2018

Court Reporting and Stenotype Services - The 2018 U.S. Market Research Report (Covers 2009-2022 )

marketresearch.com
Publication Year: 2018

NAICS Code: 561492 Court Reporting and Stenotype Services | NAICS Association

naics.com
Publication Year: 2019
Quotes
  • "This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing verbatim reporting and stenotype recording of live legal proceedings and transcribing subsequent recorded materials."
h

Analysis and Advantages of Digital Court Reporting and Recording in the Courts, Deposition, and Administrative Hearings Markets

huntreporting.com
Publication Year: 2016
n

Court Reporting Industry Outlook Report

ncra.org
Publication Year: 2014
Quotes
  • "Though the source is outdated it provides insights in digital recording that is related to deposition market among firms"

Screenshots

accounts.google.com
Publication Year: 2019

Source screenshots

docs.google.com
From Part 05

Deposition Services | Veritext Legal Solutions

veritext.com
Publication Year: 2019

Products - For The Record

fortherecord.com
Publication Year: 2018

PRODUCTS — SONICLEAR

soniclear.com
Publication Year: 2019

Home Page -Visionary Legal.

visionarylegal.com
Publication Year: 2019

Esquire Solutions -Getting depositions right for you…across town or around the globe.

esquiresolutions.com
Publication Year: 2019
c

Veritext - Annual Revenue

crunchbase.com
Publication Year: 2019
c

For The Record - Annual Revenue

crunchbase.com
Publication Year: 2019
z

Soni Clear - Revenue

zoominfo.com
Publication Year: 2019

Screenshot: SoniClear Revenue

drive.google.com
Publication Year: 2019

Court Reporting | Transcriptions | Depositions | Information

veritext.com
Publication Year: 2019

Deposition Solutions - For The Record

fortherecord.com
Publication Year: 2019

History - For The Record

fortherecord.com
Publication Year: 2019

Visionary Legal Technologies

visionarylegal.com
Publication Year: 2019
v

Visionary Legal Technologies - Datasheet

visionarylegaltechnologies.com
Publication Year: 2019
z

Visionary Legal Technologies - Annual Revenue

zoominfo.com
Publication Year: 2019

Screenshot: Visionary Legal Technologies

drive.google.com
Publication Year: 2019

Technology - Esquire Deposition Solutions

esquiresolutions.com
Publication Year: 2019
c

Esquire Solutions Annual Revenue

crunchbase.com
Publication Year: 2019

What is Audio Transcription?

audiotranscription.org
Publication Year: 2012
From Part 06

Gov Transcriber 9 — SONICLEAR

soniclear.com
Publication Year: 2019

Do as I say: Good news for lawyers who hate transcribing by hand

abajournal.com
Publication Year: 2019
Quotes
  • "Everlaw automatically converts depositions, voicemails and other multimedia to text, analyzing files as they are processed and removing the need for litigation support teams to play back entire files or send them to outside services for transcription. Instead, they can quickly search, annotate and navigate the transcriptions."
  • "For many in the legal field, the most popular option continues to be Nuance’s Dragon software. Nicole Black, a lawyer and legal technology specialist at MyCase, says lawyers have a number of options for transcription. But she hears about the Dragon software the most. Most often it’s used for dictating memos or letters."
  • "Nuance released the 15th version of the Dragon software in late 2016. The company has been pushing forward with artificial intelligence to improve word recognition, so users no longer have to spend time at the outset recording themselves and then adjusting the transcription. Thus, the product can “learn” their accents and other speech inflections, says Rick Brown, senior director of product management at Nuance."
  • "The new version includes a component for information technology personnel to record lists of clients, attorneys, staff, specific jargon and acronyms. Then they disseminate those to users so they’re prerecorded in Dragon’s memory bank, he adds."

Everlaw Ediscovery Software

everlaw.com

Dragon Legal Group - Document Productivity Solution for Law Firms

nuance.com
Quotes
  • "With a next-generation speech engine powered by Nuance Deep Learning technology, Dragon achieves high recognition accuracy while dictating, even for users with accents or those working in open office or mobile environments; making it ideal for diverse work groups and settings."
  • "Reduce dependencies on outsourced transcription services, or reallocate support staff to more high-value tasks. Using Dragon, transcribe recorded notes or voice files of another single speaker into text quickly and easily, or use the Auto Transcribe Folder Agent (ATFA) to transcribe batch files of audio recordings."
  • "Just drag and drop a single audio recording or a batch of audio files into Dragon’s Auto-Transcribe Folder Agent (ATFA) and it will be automatically transcribed into text. Support staff now only has to review a transcribed document for fast and efficient document turnaround."
  • "Dragon Legal Groups' specialized legal vocabulary means professionals can dictate contracts, briefs, or format legal citations and other legal documentation, 3 times faster than typing, with up to 99% accuracy right from the first use."

How Simon Says’ automated transcription saves (a lot of) time for Law Firms

blog.simonsays.ai

Law firms love Sonix | Convert your videos to text - Sonix is the best transcription software for lawyers | Sonix

sonix.ai
Quotes
  • "Sonix uses advanced computer algorithms to transcribe your audio and video files. Thus, humans do not have access to your sensitive information. All of your media (audio, video, and transcripts) is transmitted securely over 256-bit SSL and is also encrypted at rest. You can read more about how serious we are about security on our security page."

AI Transcription Tsunami

vtestify.com
Publication Year: 2018
Quotes
  • "What do the companies Simonsays, Trint, Sonix, Otter, Verbit, and Temi all have in common? Leveraging artificial intelligence and speech-to-text technology has redefined the process of transforming recorded audio into the written word with high accuracy. What once was an intensely laborious process can be accomplished in roughly 1/4th the amount of time."

AI for Voice Transcription – Comparing Upcoming Startups and Established Players | Emerj

emerj.com
Publication Year: 2018

Transcripts

vtestify.com

Legal Transcription Services & Verbatim Court Transcription | Verbit

verbit.ai
Publication Year: 2019
Quotes
  • "Verbit’s smart technology is adaptive and tailor-made for legal audio transcription. Our advanced software cancels out factors that reduce audio quality and identifies legal terms to provide exceptionally accurate court transcripts"

About Us — SONICLEAR

soniclear.com
Publication Year: 2019

About Us | Verbit

verbit.ai
Publication Year: 2019