There is no reliable page-per-hour rule for every deposition. The time depends on transcript length, density, the reviewer’s familiarity with the matter, the required summary format, and the intended use.
A short factual deposition may be straightforward. A long corporate or expert examination with exhibits, technical language, and issue-specific analysis can take substantially longer.
What affects the time
Length matters, but complexity often matters more. Repetitive testimony may be faster to compress than a shorter transcript with changing terminology, disputed exhibits, and frequent qualifications.
- Number and complexity of disputed issues
- Need for chronology or exhibit cross-references
- Quality and searchability of the PDF
- Depth of page-line citation required
- Whether the reviewer knows the matter already
- Level of professional verification
Manual review
A careful manual summary includes reading, issue coding, drafting, citation capture, and a verification pass. For a long transcript, that can occupy a meaningful portion of a workday or more.
The time is not wasted if the reviewer is also learning the case. The question is whether every part of that first pass requires the same level of professional attention.
AI-assisted review
AI can produce an organized first draft much faster than a manual drafting process. The legal team still needs time to review the result and verify material citations.
The honest comparison is therefore not “AI time” against “human time.” It is the complete AI-assisted workflow against the complete manual workflow.
Where the savings usually come from
The largest gains come from reducing repetitive organization: collecting related passages, drafting a chronology, grouping testimony by issue, and formatting a consistent first version.
Professional time can then be directed toward context, strategy, credibility, and the significance of the testimony.
Use accuracy as the constraint
A faster summary is not useful if the team cannot trust or verify it. Measure time saved only after including citation checks and corrections. For important uses, accuracy and reviewability remain the controlling requirements.