Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
The failures and collapse of a major transcription service is a stark reminder that accountability for essential court services remains firmly with the institutions that rely on them, a legal network director has said.
Earlier this year, an investigation by the national broadcaster revealed the transcription provider used by courts and tribunals across the country, VIQ Solutions, breached its multimillion-dollar government contract by having sensitive court files transcribed in India.
One month later, the ABC reported administrators were called on to assess the viability of the Canada-headquartered provider.
According to Justice Network director Hayder Shkara, the breach was not the first nail in VIQ’s coffin – instead, it started with an investigation into transcription inaccuracies, delays, problems dealing with the provider, and the hugely prohibitive costs.
Despite transcripts serving as a critical tool for the appeals process, those costs could run between $3,000 and $5,000 for a single hearing day. Shkara told Lawyers Weekly it meant “you had a class of people that could afford these transcripts and a class that couldn’t”.
“There are quite often times where things are said in court where you would love to get a transcript because you know it’s the only way of proving it was said … but just ordering one is really a luxury, and you would only really ask your client to pay for something like that if it was really, really important or you’re going for an appeal,” Shkara said.
Shkara added the VIQ’s closure has left courts in a “state of disarray” and lawyers in the dark: “There hasn’t been a very clear statement by the court as to what will happen when it comes to getting transcripts now [that] VIQ Solutions is in the process of winding down.”
In a statement provided to the ABC, a spokesperson for the Federal Court said its contingency arrangements involve a panel of onshore transcript service providers and transcriptionists managed in-house.
“Longer-term arrangements will be focused on a low-cost model for transcript services for all litigants, including those most disadvantaged or at risk, at the core of its design,” the spokesperson said.
For Shkara, the concept of relying on an outsourced company to provide such an essential court service “has never sat well with me”.
“Access to justice should be equal, and [having] such punitive costs to order a transcript really did rub me the wrong way,” Shkara said.
“It really goes to show that in a system where we’re always encouraged to think of risk mitigation and backups to a backup, it’s concerning [that] nothing has been provided here in terms of guidance.”
Shkara said there is an opportunity here for courts to find a solution that is logical and economical for court users. While no provider – including those that use artificial intelligence – may be perfect, Shkara said it needs to give users the ability to review any errors.
“Outsourcing isn’t always the best answer, and outsourcing doesn’t always give the ability to just pass the buck in terms of consequences.
“I think that’s always been the case when it comes to government and public services: they can point the [finger] and say ‘we followed the process, and this is what we’ve done’, and that’s what I understand the courts have done here,” Shkara said.
“It still needs proper oversight, it still needs to be managed by the governing body, and there needs to be checks and measures in place to ensure these things don’t happen again.”
