replace Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Could automated transcription tools replace human court reporters?

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:57:12 +0000

Image from Shutterstock.

For the longest time, one of the staples of any courtroom has been the stenographer. Typing on a small machine that produced a seemingly random series of letters onto a small strip of paper about the same size as what cash registers use to produce receipts, being a court reporter required extensive training and superhuman attention span. One missed sentence or one inaccurate transcription and the entire trial record could be compromised.

Transcription technology has existed for a while now, but its accuracy has never been that high, meaning that human court reporters have remained the gold standard.

However, recent advances in technology, as well as a shortage of court reporters nationwide and the increased use of virtual depositions and hearings, has led to an opening for automated transcription tools.

Now, artificial intelligence could make automated transcription even more accurate. As the tech becomes better and better, is it possible that it could eventually replace human court reporters?

In this episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Karl Seelbach talks with the ABA Journal’s Victor Li about the state of automated court reporting, how it compares to human stenographers and how generative AI has changed the industry. Seelbach, a litigator, is the co-founder of Skribe, an AI-based court reporting and transcription service.

Want to listen on the go? Legal Rebels is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

Karl Seelbach

" style="vertical-align:text-top; max-width:80px;"/>

Karl Seelbach

Karl Seelbach, a litigator, is the co-founder of Skribe, an artificial intelligence-based court reporting and transcription service. He has over 17 years of experience in the courtroom, representing clients in personal injury, business and employment litigation. Before launching his own law firm in 2015, Seelbach worked as a litigation partner at one of Texas’ largest law firms, Winstead. He received his law degree from the South Texas College of Law in Houston and his undergraduate degree from Stephen F. Austin State University. In his free time, he enjoys spending time with his wife and daughters in Dripping Springs, Texas.

Source link

The post Could automated transcription tools replace human court reporters? appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Could automated transcription tools replace human court reporters?

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:58:16 +0000

Image from Shutterstock.

Transcription technology has existed for a while now, but its accuracy has never been that high, meaning that human court reporters have remained the gold standard.

Now, artificial intelligence could make automated transcription even more accurate. As the tech becomes better and better, is it possible that it could eventually replace human court reporters?

Want to listen on the go? Legal Rebels is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

Karl Seelbach

" style="vertical-align:text-top; max-width:80px;"/>

Karl Seelbach

Source link

The post Could automated transcription tools replace human court reporters? appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief could mean his vice president would replace him after an election win

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 08 Jan 2024 19:30:55 +0000

Constitutional Law

‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief could mean his vice president would replace him after an election win

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 4, 2024, 11:28 am CST

In U.S. Supreme Court briefs seeking ballot access, former President Donald Trump and his former U.S. solicitor general are making an argument that could lead to a vice presidential candidate becoming president. Photo from Shutterstock.

Trump’s argument is in his cert petition, filed Wednesday, which asks the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that bans him from the primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provision bars people from holding U.S. office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”

Trump’s focus on the disqualification clause in Section 3 raises an “intriguing point,” according to Gersen’s Daily Comment article for the New Yorker. At issue is a sentence in Section 3 that reads, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

According to Gersen, Trump’s argument is that the clause is about holding office, and it doesn’t prevent anyone, even an insurrectionist, from running or being elected to office because it is always possible that Congress will vote to allow the person to hold office.

The argument is “the centerpiece” of an amicus brief also filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and its chair, Gersen said.

Partly written by Noel Francisco, former solicitor general in the Trump administration, the brief argues that, whether or not Section 3 applies, “it unquestionably does not allow Colorado to exclude President Trump from the ballot.” Section 3 bars disqualified people from serving in office but not from running, the brief argues.

The Colorado Supreme Court “effectively usurped Congress’ sole authority to decide when, if at all, to remove any Section 3 disqualification,” the brief argues.

That means that Trump can still run and seek removal of the disqualification, if there is one. What happens after a win and before a qualification vote is governed by the 20th Amendment, which says the vice president must serve as acting president until the president is qualified, the brief says.

“But, of course, there is no guarantee that if Trump is elected in November, Congress will lift his disqualification,” Gersen wrote, “especially because Congress is unlikely to reach the high bar of two-thirds of each house that is needed to do so. That implies that voters who believe that Trump is disqualified as an insurrectionist have the ability to elect him expecting that his running mate will be president, possibly throughout the four-year term.”

“Why Colorado judge kept Trump on ballot despite finding he engaged in insurrection”

Source link

The post ‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief could mean his vice president would replace him after an election win appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.