Acting as both counsel and arbitrators, we have gained extensive experience with the transcription of small hearings recently. As counsel, we aim to serve the parties’ interests by keeping arbitration costs as low as possible. As arbitrators, we find it more comfortable and secure to rely on transcripts when making decisions.
The best approach may often lie in a compromise: utilizing transcription services that are affordable yet reliable and secure.
What Is a Small Arbitration?
To begin, what qualifies as a small arbitration? The decision to transcribe hearings and its associated costs is rarely an issue in large disputes, where the costs of lawyers, experts, and institutions significantly outweigh logistical expenses such as transcription.
Arbitral institutions have established criteria for expedited or simplified procedures, often setting the amount in dispute as a threshold. These thresholds vary across institutions and reflect the goal of tailoring procedures to the scale of the dispute:
ICC (International Chamber of Commerce): The Expedited Procedure applies if the amount in dispute is below USD 3 million for arbitration agreements concluded after 1 January 2021 [Article 30(2) and Appendix VI, Article 1(2)(b) of ICC Arbitration Rules 2021].
Swiss Arbitration Centre: The threshold is CHF 1 million, although the Court may adjust it depending on the circumstances [Article 42(1)(b) of Swiss Arbitration Rules 2021].
SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre): The threshold is SGD 6 million (approximately CHF 4 million) [Rule 5 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2016].
Interestingly, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and the Finland Arbitration Institute (FAI) do not define monetary thresholds for the application of their expedited procedures. Instead, their applicability is determined by the parties' agreement or the institution’s discretion, considering factors such as complexity and the value of the dispute.
The rationale behind these thresholds lies in balancing cost and procedural efficiency with the complexity of the case. Simplified processes enable arbitration to remain accessible without compromising fairness. However, the amount in dispute does not necessarily correlate with the complexity of the arbitration or its procedural requirements.
Hearing Practices in Small Arbitrations
In smaller arbitrations, it is common to have only one substantive hearing, alongside shorter procedural meetings as needed. Typically, the procedural meetings are not transcribed, although certain tribunals may provide minutes for key sessions such as the first procedural meeting organized with the parties shortly after the file is transferred to the constituted arbitral tribunal.
In this context, the decision to transcribe hearings should factor in the level of complexity of the dispute and the arbitration’s legal framework. Further concrete considerations should include:
Whether the Parties anticipate adducing witness evidence in support of their positions.
In the affirmative, a hearing is more likely to be organized to allow cross-examinations of the witnesses by the opposing party. Cross-examinations are less scripted than oral pleadings delivered by the parties or their counsel, and the resulting conversation may be disorderly. This consideration alone may increase the desirability of having the hearing transcribed, notably to bring clarity to the record.
Whether the Parties and/or their representatives are familiar with arbitration procedure.
In the context of (small) international arbitrations, it is not uncommon for parties to represent themselves or to assign their representation to lawyers who routinely handle their legal needs in other areas of practice, but have no or little prior experience of arbitration proceedings.
Those cases can get procedurally complex if the participants to the proceedings do not fully understand or follow the procedure. In the context of international arbitration, these difficulties are often exacerbated by the multi-lingual, multi-cultural context of the arbitration which can complicate communication.
Handling hearings in this context can become tricky, and having a written record of discussions from key sessions like the first procedural meeting and the main hearing enhances fairness by increasing transparency, ease of reference, and accessibility.
Additionally, simultaneous transcription services (so-called “Live Note” transcription) can provide immediate and precise records. These can be particularly helpful for participants who are unfamiliar with the procedure or language of the arbitration, enabling them to follow discussions more effectively and verify details in real-time.
Can Video Recordings Replace Transcripts in Smaller Arbitrations?
In principle, fairness is ensured if the parties have access to video recordings of key meetings. These recordings allow parties to review discussions and make verifications similar to those made with written transcripts. Arbitral tribunals can also reference video recordings with precise timings to support their reasoning and decisions.
However, while video recordings are a viable option, written transcripts are often more practical for quick reference. From both the parties' and the tribunal’s perspectives, transcripts offer greater clarity and reliability. Furthermore, courts are less likely to scrutinize video recordings in detail than transcripts when enforcement or recognition of the award is challenged, making transcripts a safer option in terms of accessibility and procedural security.
Thus, where costs are reasonable and proportionate to the overall arbitration expenses, written transcripts should be preferred.One compromise might involve reserving transcripts for hearings with witnesses, where proceedings are less scripted and ordered than those limited to prepared oral submissions.
Other situations where transcripts are recommended include hearings where extensive tribunal-party interactions are expected, including answers to spontaneous questions, as well as cases where parties are unrepresented, unfamiliar with arbitration, and/or non-native speakers of the arbitration language.
The Fine Balance: Cost-Effective Transcription Solutions
Another practical approach is to explore non-traditional transcription options, such as automated and hybrid solutions. In August 2024, Astute Dispute Resolution explored several available options for transcribing small arbitration hearings at no or low cost. This exploration, which was time-constrained, focused on three alternatives:
Free Automated Transcription Tools
This category includes Microsoft Teams’ automated transcription function, which comes free with Microsoft 365 Business Plans and is thus included in most lawyers’ existing working environment.
However, the Microsoft Team’s automatic transcription of English conversations performed poorly in tests involving non-native English speakers. While cost-effective, the tool struggled with hesitations and accents, making further embarrassing confusions in the transcription process.
The category further includes popular speech-to-text applications such as Otter AI, Turboscribe, Amberscript and more. Tests with non-confidential recordings offered a better quality of word recognition than Microsoft Teams. However, the location of data transferred to these platforms makes it inappropriate for legal use, falling short of standards for privacy and confidentiality.
Hybrid Dedicated Transcription Services
Astute Dispute Resolution evaluated the services offered by TERES, a legal service provider that advertises “accurate transcripts of your hearings on the same day at affordable rates”, alongside other hearing-related services commonly offered by leading market players such as hearing bundles, electronic presentation of evidence, and document management systems, among others.
TERES distinguishes itself by leveraging AI to deliver a hybrid transcription service that is more cost-effective. The process begins with AI-generated transcripts based on speech, which are subsequently refined by professionals. Corrections can be made in real-time by several professionals following the hearing online when a Live Note is ordered, or after the hearing has concluded.
The pricing for this hybrid solution is highly competitive, varying depending on the required turnaround time. A particularly appealing option for cases with a flexible procedural timetable involves sharing the hearing recording with TERES for post-hearing transcription, with costs starting as low as USD 100 per hour of recording, depending on the delivery timeline.
Although we ultimately did not choose to work with TERES, we were highly impressed by the demonstration of their hybrid transcription system. Remarkably, the AI accurately processed speech characterized by a strong French accent and pronounced stuttering, requiring minimal human correction.
Independent Court Reporters
We were attracted by the absence of any additional expenses for our clients when exploring the Microsoft Teams solution. We were excited by the original and cost-effective solution of TERES.
Nevertheless, we naturally also investigated how “traditional court reporters” had adapted their services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the notable evolution in the market for hearing assistance services.
Before these changes, the various professionals involved in in-person hearings—such as court reporters, IT assistants, video operators, and document managers—often operated independently. It was not unusual for these service providers to come from separate companies or to work as individual contractors. In that setting, court reporters were frequently organized in small firms or worked as independent professionals. Even today, many of these small firms and independent court reporters continue to operate, including in online formats.
Astute Dispute Resolution approached Ms. Claire Hill, an experienced independent court reporter well-regarded for her work in in-person hearings, to inquire about her pricing for assisting with a short online hearing of up to one day. Her quoted rate was only slightly higher than that of TERES and was thoughtfully capped to reflect the modest scope of the case.
Our previous positive experiences with Ms. Hill made her the clear choice. Relying on her services specifically, rather than those of a larger company—which could assign the task to any court reporter under its umbrella—offered greater assurance of quality and accountability while maintaining cost efficiency for the hearing.
For those seeking independent court reporters like Ms. Hill, she recommended this list available on the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC)’s website.
Conclusion
The decision to transcribe hearings in small arbitrations should be guided by the specific circumstances of each case, including witness involvement, procedural challenges, and the need for enhanced transparency and fairness.
In cases where cost-efficiency is paramount, hybrid solutions like TERES may offer an optimal balance. However, the reliability of professional court reporters remains unparalleled.
Astute Dispute Resolution continues to adapt its approach, ensuring that each arbitration achieves both procedural integrity and cost-effectiveness.
What the highlights of this article!
⬇️