Verbatim French–English transcription for American files, Canadian files, and the ones that answer to both. Every answer stays in the language it was given in — so it is still the witness’s word when you need it back.
We take files that are entirely American, entirely Canadian, or both at the same time. The constant is French and English — and, where the matter calls for it, both inside one record.
Depositions, examinations and hearings reported in English. Where a witness answered in French, we recover it from the audio so nothing said is lost to the file.
Quebec examinations where both languages are the record, administrative tribunals, and criminal matters where the Criminal Code puts each language in the record on its own terms.
A Canadian witness examined for an American matter, or an American party filing in Quebec. One sitting, both sets of conventions, one bilingual record.
The official transcript of an interpreted proceeding contains the interpreter’s English and nothing else. That is by design. It is also the gap we exist to fill.
In a U.S. deposition the reporter takes down the interpretation, not the answer. The French is never transcribed at all — the record simply notes that the witness spoke in a foreign language. Most courts will still treat the English as the witness’s own words, under what is called the language-conduit rule. That holds right up until someone contests it — and then the argument turns on audio that nobody has transcribed.
A. Je n’ai jamais vu l’annexe C avant
le douze janvier.
The answer, as given, under oath.
A. I never saw Schedule C before
January twelfth.
Composed by the interpreter. The reporter is instructed to take down the English and mark “(Witness speaks in foreign language)” — correcting the interpretation is not their function. Attribution to the witness holds only until it is challenged.
A. Je n’ai jamais vu l’annexe C avant
le douze janvier.
(Interpretation: I never saw
Schedule C before January 12.)
What was actually said, alongside the interpretation, each marked for what it is. A challenge to the rendering gets answered with a document instead of an argument.
Not a language vendor with a legal glossary. The practitioner on your file has delivered legal argument in French before Quebec’s National Assembly and has written constitutional-law and civil-liberties texts in both languages. This is not a credential for the website: where a translation is disputed, the court weighs the qualifications of the person who made it.
Quebec conventions and U.S. deposition practice produced from the same audio, in one pass. Under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 both languages are the record in Quebec, so nothing needs interpreting; in a U.S. matter the interpretation stays where the forum requires it and we preserve what was said underneath it.
Two named practitioners, not a contractor pool, an offshore desk, or model output passed off as reviewed. The accuracy declaration on your transcript is signed by the person who did the work, and that person answers the phone.
Three points in a bilingual matter where the record either holds what was actually said, or it does not. This is the work.
911 and emergency-services calls, custodial and police-station interviews, body-worn recordings, consented and covert recordings, recorded meetings and interviews. Nobody took these down at the time. The transcript is made from the recording and it is the only record there will ever be — which is why it has to be right, and why the person who made it has to be able to stand behind it. Regular work for public-defence offices.
The deposition was reported in English; the French went unrecorded on the page but is sitting in the audio or video. We transcribe what the witness actually said, line-matched against the official transcript, and mark every place the two diverge. Used for errata, motions to correct, cross-examination preparation and appeal.
Do it early. U.S. courts have held that a party who sits on an interpretation problem can waive it — the objection belongs on delivery, not on the eve of trial.
In Quebec, section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 lets counsel examine in one official language while the witness answers in the other, with no interpreter in between: each is transcribed as spoken. In criminal matters under a section 530 order, section 530.1(g) of the Criminal Code goes further and requires the record to contain a transcript of everything said in the language it was said in, plus a transcript of the interpretation.
Quebec has roughly 212 official stenographers. About 25 work in both languages. Agencies subcontract the bilingual sittings, and that is frequently us.
Most transcription firms treat a French passage as a translation problem: send it out, get English back, drop it in. That produces a readable document and quietly discards the thing you may need a year later. We treat it as a record problem. The two languages stay distinct and attributable, an interpretation is marked as an interpretation rather than passed off as testimony, the conventions match the forum the transcript is going to, and the accuracy declaration is signed by a named practitioner who works in the law in both languages and can speak to how the transcript was made. Tell us the forum at intake and we will confirm the form your filing needs before you engage us.
Four kinds of proceeding, four sets of formatting conventions. Each transcript is produced to the requirements of the forum it is going to.
Verbatim bilingual transcripts with speaker identification, timestamps, line numbering and objection notation, produced from the recording to the conventions of the forum the transcript is going to.
21 Q. Ms. Patel, when did you receive Schedule C? 22 A. Le douze janvier. But the annex — 23 Q. Vous parlez de l’annexe C ? 24 A. Oui. Elle n’est arrivée qu’une semaine plus tard.
Judicial formatting for private panels, institutional arbitrations and complex multi-party disputes. ICC, AAA, ADRIC and CIAC proceedings accepted.
THE CHAIR: We are back on the record.
Me TREMBLAY: Merci, Madame la Présidente.
(Voix superposées.)
THE CHAIR: One at a time, please.
Administrative tribunals, labour commissions, immigration hearings and government proceedings — formatted to each body’s documentary requirements.
08 THE MEMBER: Please state your name for the record. 09 THE WITNESS: Chantal Beauchemin [phonetic]. 10 [inaudible 00:14:22] 11 THE MEMBER: Repeat that, please.
U.S. deposition standards combined with bilingual Quebec expertise. One record built to satisfy both procedural frameworks, without reformatting or a second pass.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WALSH 31 Q. When did you first receive it? 32 A. Le douze janvier. 33 (Silence 00:04 → 00:12.)
French as spokenEnglish as spokenReporter’s notation
A two-page transcript in our delivered format — line numbering, speaker attribution, conventions page and signed accuracy declaration. Fictional matter.
We transcribe both languages as spoken, in one pass, to whichever set of conventions the matter requires. Both languages preserved. No second transcription. No reformatting after the fact.
The third case above is the hard one. A Montreal deponent examined for a United States matter. A U.S. party filing in Quebec. The same transcript has to satisfy both procedural frameworks — and the usual answer, an interpreter plus a second transcription, doubles the cost and introduces a second point of failure. Here is what breaks.
Counsel examines in English, the witness answers in French, then crosses back mid-answer. An interpreter renders it; the reporter transcribes the rendering. What the witness actually said never enters the record.
Quebec follows Superior Court conventions; U.S. depositions follow AAERT practice with its own objection notation and exhibit marking. A transcript built for one is reformatted for the other, and pagination shifts underneath the citations.
The form of attestation that satisfies a Quebec filing is not the form a U.S. filing expects, and neither travels across the border on its own. Which one a transcript needs is decided by where it is going — and that has to be settled at intake, not at filing.
Interpretation, transcription, translation, review. Four steps, four schedules, and every correction travels back through all of them.
One file in. One record out. Built for the forum it is going to.
Submit a cross-border fileLitigation Firms
Quebec · Ontario · New York · Federal
Arbitration Panels
ICC · AAA · ADRIC · CIAC · Ad hoc
Government & Tribunals
Administrative · Labour · Immigration
Legal Departments
In-house counsel · Cross-border
Insurance Defence
Examinations under oath · Coverage
Civil Litigation
Discovery · Pre-trial · Appeal
Public Defence & Legal Aid
Criminal · Language rights
Academic & Research
Law faculties · Linguistics
Legal transcription delivered with the level of precision and reliability high-pressure defense work demands. Fast turnaround, meticulous formatting, and exceptional professionalism throughout the process.
Co-founder · Quebec procedure & language rights
Everything you need before submitting a proceeding. Additional questions welcome at secure@lexoral.org
Submit a Proceeding →The interpreter's. In U.S. practice the reporter takes down the English interpretation and nothing else — official court-reporting guidance is explicit that the foreign language is not transcribed, that it is marked only as the witness speaking in a foreign language, and that correcting an interpretation is not the reporter's function. Most federal circuits will still treat that English as the witness's own statement under the language-conduit rule, but the Eleventh Circuit has rejected that rule and the others apply a multi-factor test that asks who supplied the interpreter and how qualified they were. The attribution holds until someone contests it. What we do is transcribe the French sitting in the audio, so that if it is ever contested you are answering with a document rather than an argument.
Every Lexoral transcript carries a signed accuracy declaration attesting that the transcript is a faithful and complete account of the audio provided, signed by the practitioner who produced it. Forums differ on the form of attestation they expect, and the form that satisfies a Quebec filing is not the one a U.S. filing expects. Tell us where the transcript is going at intake and we will confirm what your filing needs before you engage us.
Yes — this is the specialization. Counsel examines in English, the witness answers in French and crosses back mid-answer; we transcribe each language verbatim as spoken, without translating or paraphrasing, with the switch marked where the convention of the forum calls for it. Quebec French register, courthouse usage and legal terminology are handled by a practitioner who works in the law in both languages, not by a glossary applied afterwards.
Transcripts of recordings are a well-established category of evidence in their own right. For foreign-language recordings, U.S. federal model jury instructions treat the English transcript as the evidence the jury works from where accuracy is not in issue; where accuracy is disputed, the jury decides between competing transcripts by weighing the qualifications of whoever prepared each one, the clarity of the recording, and how the transcript was produced. That is why ours are produced and signed by a named practitioner with published credentials, why every transcript ships with a conventions page, and why uncertain passages are marked and timestamped instead of smoothed over.
Yes, and no interpreter is needed for it. Under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 either official language may be used before Quebec's courts, and each participant chooses independently — counsel may put the question in English and the witness may answer in French in the same breath. Both are the record. The transcript reproduces each language as it was spoken, with no translation, because nothing is being translated. This is the opposite of the U.S. model, and it is the situation we are built for.
Where an order is made under section 530 for an accused to be tried in their official language, section 530.1(g) requires the record of the preliminary inquiry or trial to include a transcript of everything that was said in the official language in which it was said, a transcript of any interpretation of it into the other official language, and documentary evidence in the language in which it was tendered. A dual-language verbatim record is not a preference in that setting; it is what the statute asks for.
Order the audio or video and have the original-language answers transcribed and line-matched against the official English transcript, so the divergences are documented rather than asserted. That record supports errata, a motion to correct, or cross-examination on the point. Move quickly: U.S. courts have penalised parties who raised an interpretation problem late, in some cases treating the objection as waived, so this belongs on delivery of the transcript and not on the eve of trial.
Yes. Where an accused is tried in the official language of their choice under section 530 of the Criminal Code, or where a party uses French or English in a Quebec court as section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 permits, the record has to show the language that was actually used — not a convenience translation of it. A transcript that silently converts the proceeding into one language can undercut the very right being asserted. We produce records that keep the two languages distinct and attributable.
Because when a translation is disputed the court does not weigh the vendor — it weighs the person who made it. Model instructions direct jurors to consider the qualifications of the translator, the clarity of the recording and how the transcript was produced. A transcript from an anonymous pool has nothing to put in that column. Ours is produced by a practitioner who has delivered legal argument in French before Quebec's National Assembly and written constitutional-law texts in both languages, and who can say so under oath.
By convention, visibly, and never by guessing. Overlapping speech is marked as such (voix superposées / simultaneous speakers) rather than invented into clean sentences. Inaudible passages carry a timestamp — [inaudible 00:14:22] — so you can go to the audio yourself. Uncertain proper nouns are marked [phonetic]. Silences of evidentiary length are timed. Every transcript ships with a conventions page so opposing counsel reads the same marks the same way.
Yes. Emergency-services audio, custodial and police-station interviews, and body-worn recordings are regular work, including for public-defence offices. This is difficult audio — crosstalk, radio traffic, distress, background noise — and it is quoted after we have heard it, not from a duration estimate.
Exhibits are carried into the transcript as they are marked on the record, with the announcing speaker attributed. Where a cross-border matter runs Quebec pièce numbering on one side and U.S. Exhibit numbering on the other, both are carried in the same record so neither set of counsel has to translate references by hand.
AI transcription fails precisely in the conditions that define bilingual legal proceedings: mid-sentence code-switching, overlapping speakers, legal terminology, proper nouns and Quebec French register. It also invents fluent text where the audio is unclear, which is the single worst failure mode in an evidentiary record. More fundamentally, a model cannot maintain a chain of custody, cannot be cross-examined, and cannot sign an accuracy declaration.
Two named practitioners — language and verbatim discipline on one side, Quebec procedure and jurisdiction on the other. Files are not distributed to a contractor pool or an offshore desk, and nothing is delivered as reviewed that was not in fact reviewed by a person. The name on the declaration is the person who did the work.
Five business days as standard, forty-eight hours on priority. Multi-day proceedings are scheduled individually, and where a hearing runs over consecutive days we can deliver day-by-day so counsel is not waiting on the full record to prepare the next morning.
Per page, quoted in Canadian dollars, after we have heard the recording. Length alone does not set the price — overlapping speech, poor audio and sustained code-switching change the work considerably, so a firm figure follows the audio review rather than preceding it. Confirmation of receipt is the same working day.
Searchable PDF and editable Word, line-numbered and paginated, with speaker identification, a conventions page and the signed accuracy declaration. Delivery is by encrypted transfer. Formatting corrections are made at no charge.
Tell us the page and line. The passage is re-audited against the source recording. Where the audio does not support what was transcribed, it is corrected and the declaration re-issued at no charge. Where the audio does support it, we tell you that plainly and mark the passage as disputed rather than quietly changing the record — because a transcript that moves on request is not evidence.
Most audio and video formats, including MP3, WAV, M4A and MP4. If a recording is difficult in places we say so before quoting, not after delivering, and we identify which passages carry risk so you know where the record is soft.
Yes. Continuous line numbering, structured pagination and speaker identification, formatted for direct reference in pleadings and briefs — so a citation made once holds for the life of the matter.
Yes. Files are handled through restricted-access workflows in compliance with Loi 25, transferred by encrypted protocols, stored in restricted-access environments, and never disclosed to third parties except where you instruct us to involve one. Clients may request permanent deletion of recordings and transcripts at any time.
No. Client materials are used exclusively for the transcription assignment. They are never shared, repurposed, sold, or used to train or develop any model or system, internal or external.
Confirmation the same working day. A firm figure once the audio has been reviewed.