Court Reporting in Crisis: Profits Over Justice

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , ,

The New Gold Rush – court reporting agencies trade stenographers for profits and endanger the entire legal industry!

The legal industry is facing an unprecedented crisis, one that has remained largely under the radar, yet threatens the very foundation of the judicial process. Court reporting agencies, once dedicated to the integrity of legal transcription, have shifted their focus away from skilled stenographers in favor of cost-cutting alternatives that prioritize profits over accuracy. This new gold rush—where corporations exploit digital recording and offshore transcription services at the expense of trained stenographers—poses a grave danger to justice itself.

The Decline of Stenographers in Courtrooms

Historically, stenographers have been the backbone of courtroom proceedings. Their specialized training, which requires years of rigorous practice, enables them to transcribe legal proceedings with near-perfect accuracy in real-time. Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) not only ensure every word is captured, but also provide instant readbacks and certify transcripts as official records.

However, the legal industry is now witnessing a sharp decline in stenographic professionals. According to the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), the industry faces a shortage of more than 5,000 stenographers across the U.S., with many leaving due to low pay, lack of job security, and the rise of alternative transcription methods. But rather than invest in training new stenographers, court reporting agencies are accelerating their shift toward digital court reporting—a move that comes with significant risks.

The Rise of Digital Court Reporting and Its Pitfalls

In a bid to cut costs, many court reporting agencies are replacing skilled stenographers with digital recording systems and untrained transcribers. These digital court reporters (DCRs) rely on audio recordings, which are later transcribed either by software or outsourced personnel, often in countries with no legal oversight.

While these methods may seem cost-effective on the surface, they come with alarming downsides:

  • Accuracy Issues: Unlike stenographers, who capture speech verbatim in real-time, digital recorders often struggle with overlapping voices, background noise, and technical malfunctions. Poor-quality audio results in incomplete or inaccurate transcripts, which can impact legal decisions.
  • Lack of Certification: Digital court reporters do not undergo the same rigorous certification process as stenographers, leading to a lower standard of accuracy and accountability.
  • Security Risks: Many agencies outsource transcription to offshore workers, raising concerns about data security and the confidentiality of sensitive legal records.
  • Legal Challenges: Courts rely on certified transcripts as official records, but digitally transcribed proceedings frequently contain errors or omissions that can jeopardize cases, leading to appeals and retrials.
  • Lack of Judicial Oversight: Court reporters play an indispensable role in ensuring judicial oversight and the overall accountability of the justice system. Their transcripts serve as the permanent, unalterable record of courtroom proceedings, which is crucial for monitoring not only the fairness of the trial, but also for documenting any potential judicial misconduct. If a judge behaves improperly, it is often the court reporter’s record that enables the Judicial Council to investigate and address such actions. Without an accurate record, judges could act without oversight, knowing their words and decisions are not being reliably captured, potentially leading to unchecked abuse of power.
  • Moreover, in the appellate process, a court reporter’s transcript serves as the foundation for a higher court to review and potentially overturn a trial decision. If this record is compromised by inaccuracies or missing details due to the rise of unreliable technology or unqualified individuals, the foundation of appeals collapses. In essence, court reporters safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power in the hands of judges, ensuring that no one, including judges, can escape accountability. Without their vital work, the system of checks and balances within the courts would be severely weakened, ultimately threatening the very foundation of justice.
  • With digital or electronic recording systems owned and controlled by the court itself, there is a serious risk of manipulation, tampering, or outright destruction of records, especially in cases where the court or individuals involved may want to cover up negligence or misconduct. In the case of the Waukesha, WI Christmas Parade tragedy on November 21, 2021, for instance, if a court were guilty of negligence or mishandling the case, there would be nothing preventing them from deleting or altering digital records, either intentionally or as a result of poor system oversight. Unlike stenographic records, which are permanent, time-stamped, and verifiable by multiple parties, digital records are much more vulnerable to being erased, edited, or lost without anyone ever knowing.
  • This lack of permanence and transparency in digital records creates an environment where accountability is compromised. Stenographers, on the other hand, create a physical, independent record that is much harder to tamper with or destroy, ensuring that courts can be held accountable for their actions—whether that’s the handling of evidence, testimony, or even the conduct of judges. If courts have control over digital systems, there is no safeguard to prevent them from manipulating records to cover up their own errors or misconduct, which poses a direct threat to judicial oversight and the fundamental principles of justice.
  • In cases like Waukesha, WI, the importance of maintaining an accurate and untouchable record is even more urgent, as any erasure or alteration could deprive victims, families, and the public of the truth—and prevent a fair investigation or appeal. This highlights the irreplaceable role that human court reporters, with their professional expertise and independent records, play in ensuring justice is served and accountability is maintained.

Corporate Greed at the Heart of the Crisis

The shift away from stenographers is not driven by necessity, but by profit. Many court reporting agencies are now owned by private equity firms and large corporations, whose primary goal is maximizing shareholder returns, rather than ensuring judicial integrity. These entities view stenographic services as an unnecessary expense and prioritize methods that increase profit margins, even at the risk of compromising justice.

The so-called “court reporting shortage” has been strategically fabricated by the Speech-to-Text Institute (STTI) and certain big box agencies to serve their financial interests. By pushing this narrative, agencies justify replacing certified stenographers with unreliable digital alternatives, boosting their own profits while reducing accuracy in legal records. STTI, backed by digital reporting proponents, falsely claims a crisis to drive courts toward inferior technology. In reality, thousands of skilled stenographers are available, but agencies refuse to pay fair wages. Court reporter wages have not kept pace with inflation for over 50 years, further discouraging new professionals. This manufactured shortage undermines justice, prioritizing corporate greed over verbatim accuracy and the integrity of the legal system.

Rather than invest in recruitment and training programs for new stenographers, these agencies lobby for legislation that supports digital court reporting, despite overwhelming evidence that it is an inferior alternative. Some states have even begun relaxing certification requirements, allowing anyone with minimal training to work as a court reporter, further degrading the profession’s standards.

The Real-World Consequences of Digital Court Reporting

The dangers of replacing stenographers with digital alternatives are not hypothetical—they have already led to serious legal repercussions. Cases across the country have suffered due to transcription errors, missing testimony, and audio failures that rendered entire proceedings invalid. Some of the most glaring issues include:

  • Criminal Trials in Jeopardy: In one case, a defendant’s appeal was delayed for years because the digital transcript contained numerous gaps and inaudible sections, preventing an accurate review of the trial record.
  • Civil Lawsuits at Risk: Businesses and individuals have faced costly delays when transcripts failed to accurately reflect testimony, forcing parties to go through expensive and time-consuming re-litigation.
  • Judge and Attorney Frustration: Legal professionals have voiced concerns that the lack of real-time readbacks—something stenographers provide instantaneously—slows down proceedings and hampers effective advocacy.

The Fight to Save Stenography

Despite these challenges, the legal community is pushing back against the profit-driven erosion of court reporting standards. Advocacy groups, including the NCRA, have launched initiatives to attract new stenographers and emphasize the profession’s critical role in maintaining justice. Some law firms and judges are also refusing to work with agencies that rely solely on digital reporting, demanding the return of certified stenographers to the courtroom. Judges are also refusing to admit transcripts that are not certified by a licensed court reporter.

Legislation may also play a role in reversing this trend. Some states are considering laws that would require stenographers for certain legal proceedings, recognizing that their expertise cannot be replaced by machines or untrained personnel. In California, a new law now requires court reporters to state their name and license number at the start of every proceeding. Furthermore, increased investment in court reporting education and apprenticeship programs could help replenish the profession’s ranks.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

The legal industry is at a crossroads. If the current trajectory continues, the accuracy and integrity of court records will be at risk, endangering the very foundation of the justice system. While digital technology has its place, it should be used to support, not replace, trained stenographers.

Court reporters play an indispensable role in ensuring judicial oversight and the overall accountability of the justice system. Their transcripts serve as the permanent, unalterable record of courtroom proceedings, which is crucial for monitoring not only the fairness of the trial but also for documenting any potential judicial misconduct. If a judge behaves improperly, it is often the court reporter’s record that enables the Judicial Council to investigate and address such actions. Without an accurate record, judges could act without oversight, knowing their words and decisions are not being reliably captured, potentially leading to unchecked abuse of power.

To prevent this crisis from deepening, legal professionals, lawmakers, and the public must take action. Court reporting agencies must be held accountable for prioritizing profits over justice. Law firms should demand stenographic services for critical proceedings. And aspiring professionals should be encouraged to enter the field through better pay, incentives, and career development opportunities.

This new gold rush—where court reporting agencies chase short-term profits at the expense of legal accuracy—must be stopped before it permanently undermines the fairness of the judicial system. The future of justice depends on it.

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment