This article is Part 2 of a three-part series. Part 1 published on LTN in August.

I once had a federal judge explain to me, in detail and with great conviction, that digital recording would never be adopted as an acceptable court reporting method. His argument was simple: Digital recording was fine, but judges and lawyers needed a written record. Since getting a transcript from a recording was difficult, time-consuming, error-prone and expensive, the method would never work. I owned a successful court transcription business at the time, but that was not enough for him to reconsider his position. Interestingly, this discussion occurred in the ForTheRecord booth at a court technology conference. FTR was already the leading provider of digital court recording software with thousands of systems installed in courtrooms around the world.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]