Texas Supreme Court: Considers AI Transcripts for Depositions

Texas Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to allow AI-generated transcripts for witness depositions where verified video recordings can act as "escape hatches" to ensure accuracy. The Texas Supreme Court building in Austin, which is also home to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Kelsey Jukam/Courthouse News) AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over whether an individual should be allowed to submit an AI-generated transcript of a deposition as evidence. The case concerns a Montgomery County man’s wrongful termination claim against his former employer. But the question before the state’s high court arises not from the termination, but from the man’s decision to use an AI-generated transcript of his deposition of his employer’s representative. The trial court in Montgomery County struck the AI-generated transcript the employee submitted from the record back in April 2025 because the transcript was not prepared by a certified shorthand reporter. In their unsigned denial of his appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Ninth District reaffirmed that the issue was not with the content of the deposition or the use of the deposition as evidence, but merely with the use of an uncertified, AI-generated written transcript. However, the company did not object to the use of the transcription software at the time of the deposition, only asking the trial court to strike it several weeks later. Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock noted it would have just been cheaper for the employee’s counsel to pay for the certified reporter, or it would have been cheaper for the company’s counsel to just let the depositions happen this way. “Why are we here?” he asked. Justice Jane Bland pressed Bradley Snead, an attorney for the employee’s side from Houston-based Wright Close, on whether the AI-generated transcript was true and correct. Snead argued that because the deposition’s video recording is certified, the transcript does not have to be. Snead said while there are many legitimate concerns in the legal system of AI-generated hallucinations for things like citations of fake cases, that is not an issue in this case. But Bland pushed back. “On the one hand, you seem to say it’s not required to be certified," she said. “But you want to use it in the same way where a live human has attested to the reliability of the thing, the video recording or transcript. Where are we going to get that peace, of a human being standing behind the transcribed product?” “Should we regulate this practice? I think most of these companies would welcome the regulation, but that’s a different question," Snead responded. “If the court wants to create more rules, they can. But under the current rules, you are allowed to do this.” The employer’s attorney, Stephanie L. Bryant of Houston-based The Bays Firm, urged the court to consider what allowing AI-based transcripts would open up in the courts. “That’s why we’re here, because the use of these AI programs to generate written transcripts and do these depositions this cheaply is going to affect litigation. It’s going to exponentially increase discovery costs.” Justice J. Brett Busby pressed Bryant on her assertion of increased costs for defendants and reduced costs for plaintiffs. “Wouldn’t our proportionality rules take care of that?” Bryant insisted she had no issue with litigants or attorneys using their own in-house AI software, but that using a third-party AI transcription platform like the employee did in this case raises substantial security and confidentiality questions, and that as such, it would not be allowed under current Texas rules of procedure. Justice Kyle Hawkins then echoed the arguments of the appeals court. “If they submit the AI transcript, you have the chance to say, ‘That’s wrong, there’s an error in the transcript, and we’ve got the video and we can just watch that.’ I don’t see what the issue is.” He also questioned why they should set aside the use