By Amanda Robert
October 7, 2026

The Texas Supreme Court is currently weighing a pivotal legal question that could reshape how litigation is conducted in the digital age, as the state’s high court considers whether to allow transcripts generated by artificial intelligence for witness depositions.

The issue came before the state’s highest court on Tuesday during oral arguments in an alleged wrongful termination case. In the underlying litigation, the plaintiff argued that he should be permitted to submit an artificial intelligence-generated transcript of his deposition of his employer’s corporate representative as official evidence. The case presents a direct collision between traditional courtroom procedures, which have long relied on certified human professionals to document legal proceedings, and the rapidly advancing capabilities of modern artificial intelligence tools.

The procedural history of the dispute highlights the legal hurdles currently facing litigants who seek to incorporate modern technology into court filings. In April 2025, the trial court struck the AI-generated deposition transcript from the record entirely. The legal basis for the exclusion was that the document had not been prepared by a certified shorthand reporter, a traditional requirement designed to ensure accuracy, accountability, and adherence to established legal standards. Following that ruling, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Texas Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, specifically noting that the use of an uncertified, AI-generated transcript remained the central point of contention and failed to meet existing procedural expectations.

However, during Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s justices signaled a more open-ended perspective regarding the integration of artificial intelligence into the evidentiary process. Several members of the high court appeared inclined to allow the use of AI-generated transcripts, particularly in circumstances where verified video recordings of depositions are available to serve as a reliable baseline for cross-checking and ensuring overall accuracy.

The practicality of combining modern digital recording tools with automated transcription software formed a core component of the justices’ inquiry during the hearing. Highlighting the safeguards already inherent in modern video-recorded depositions, Texas Supreme Court Justice Kyle Hawkins pointed out during arguments that the availability of primary video evidence effectively mitigates the risk of uncorrected transcription errors.

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,” Justice Hawkins reportedly said during the session, emphasizing a common-sense approach to potential discrepancies. “I don’t see what the issue is.”

The deliberations by the Texas Supreme Court reflect a broader nationwide conversation unfolding across legal systems as artificial intelligence tools become more sophisticated, accessible, and integrated into professional workflows. For decades, the creation of official deposition records has been the exclusive domain of licensed court reporters and stenographers who undergo rigorous training to capture spoken testimony verbatim, noting pauses, interruptions, and nonverbal cues. These certified professionals play an essential role in preserving the integrity of the evidentiary record, ensuring that appellate courts and trial judges have access to a clean, reliable, and legally sanctioned account of witness statements.

At the same time, the legal industry faces mounting cost pressures and logistical challenges. Traditional court reporting services can involve significant expenses and scheduling constraints, leading some litigants, particularly those with limited resources or those representing themselves, to explore automated alternatives. Artificial intelligence transcription tools, powered by advanced speech recognition models, have evolved to process hours of audio rapidly and at a fraction of the traditional cost. Proponents of these technologies argue that embracing AI could democratize access to the legal system by significantly lowering the financial barriers associated with conducting and documenting discovery.

Yet, critics and traditionalists within the legal community have raised valid concerns regarding the reliability of automated transcription systems. Artificial intelligence models are known to occasionally struggle with industry-specific legal terminology, overlapping dialogue, regional accents, rapid speech, and poor audio quality. Unlike a certified shorthand reporter who can interrupt proceedings to clarify an ambiguous statement or verify spelling, an automated transcription program processes audio blindly, potentially introducing subtle errors that could alter the legal meaning of a witness’s testimony if left undetected.

The perspective voiced by Justice Hawkins during Tuesday’s arguments suggests that the presence of an official video or audio recording may bridge the gap between traditional caution and technological innovation. In modern litigation, depositions are frequently recorded on video alongside the creation of a written transcript. If the video recording remains the ultimate source of truth, proponents argue that minor transcription errors produced by artificial intelligence can be easily identified, challenged, and corrected by opposing counsel using the primary video evidence, much like traditional transcripts are occasionally subjected to corrections by the parties involved.

The outcome of the current wrongful termination case before the Texas Supreme Court is expected to carry significant precedential weight not only within the state of Texas but potentially across other jurisdictions grappling with similar evidentiary questions. As artificial intelligence continues to infiltrate various aspects of legal practice—from document review and legal research to brief drafting and now the documentation of witness testimony—courts are increasingly tasked with balancing the need for procedural rigor and accuracy against the practical benefits of technological advancement.

As the Texas high court deliberates following Tuesday’s arguments, legal professionals, court reporters, technology developers, and litigants alike are closely monitoring the docket. The court’s eventual ruling is expected to clarify the permissible boundaries of artificial intelligence in Texas courtrooms and establish whether modern digital tools can formally stand alongside—or supplement—the time-honored traditions of certified court reporting in the documentation of witness depositions.