When Your Job Gets “Canceled” but You Catch It Billing Anyway

Some court reporters discover their “canceled” jobs were reassigned to digital reporters without notice. This deceptive practice undermines stenographers and affects legal record quality. By informing attorneys and holding agencies accountable, reporters can combat these unethical tactics and protect both their profession and the integrity of legal proceedings.

In the court reporting industry, professionalism and integrity are paramount. However, an increasing number of stenographers are finding themselves in situations where their job is mysteriously “canceled” by an agency, only to later discover that the deposition still took place—just with a digital reporter instead. This deceptive practice not only undermines skilled stenographers, but also raises serious ethical concerns.

The Discovery: When “Canceled” Doesn’t Mean Canceled

Many court reporters rely on their portals to track assignments, cancellations, and billing records. It can be frustrating to receive a cancellation notice, only to later find evidence that the deposition went forward with a digital reporter. In some cases, all the relevant information—including uploaded exhibits and transcripts—remains in the system, except for the actual billing details.

This suggests that some agencies may be misleading stenographers by falsely canceling jobs to replace them with digital reporters. Whether intentional or due to a lack of internal transparency, this practice damages the trust between reporters and the firms that hire them.

The Hidden Profit Motive

The financial incentives for agencies to replace stenographers with digital reporters are astronomical. A highly skilled stenographer might earn $3,000 for a single deposition, while a digital reporter—whether paid hourly or on salary—might cost the agency only a few hundred dollars. Now, multiply that savings by five days a week, across multiple states, for 52 weeks a year, and the profit margins become staggering. This financial motivation often leads to deceptive scheduling practices that favor digital reporters at the expense of experienced stenographers. It’s no wonder that the largest court reporting agency in the world, Veritext, has mandated that every single Veritext office nationwide have a split of 50% digital and 50% steno!

Making Your Concerns Known

Upon discovering such discrepancies, a proactive approach is necessary. Many reporters have started emailing attorneys directly, expressing their disappointment that the deposition was canceled, particularly because they had been looking forward to working with the firm. This approach serves multiple purposes:

Creating Awareness – If attorneys were unaware that their requested stenographer was removed in favor of a digital reporter, they might reconsider their choice of reporting service in the future.
Building Relationships – Attorneys who appreciate high-quality stenographic work may advocate for traditional court reporters when they realize they have been misled.
Encouraging Accountability – Firms that replace stenographers with digital reporters under false pretenses may think twice if they know their actions are being scrutinized.

The Experiment That Revealed the Truth

One law firm took a systematic approach to investigate this issue after being told that stenographers weren’t available. They compiled a list of preferred reporters and checked whether those individuals had been scheduled for depositions. When a job went unassigned to someone on the list, they followed up with the reporters in question.

What they discovered was telling: multiple stenographers had indeed been available and on the schedule, yet they were not offered the jobs. Upon learning of this deception, the firm decided to pull their business from that reporting agency altogether.

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters

The shift toward digital reporting in place of trained stenographers isn’t just a matter of job availability—it’s about the quality of the legal record. Digital reporters often lack the same rigorous training as certified stenographers, which can lead to inaccuracies, poor transcripts, and delays in legal proceedings.

By standing up to these unethical practices, stenographers and legal professionals can work together to ensure that integrity remains at the forefront of the industry. Whether through open conversations with attorneys, increased scrutiny of agency practices, or even pulling business from dishonest firms, holding these entities accountable is the key to maintaining the high standards expected in legal proceedings.

Final Thoughts

If you ever find yourself in a situation where your job has been “canceled” but later appears to have been completed without you, don’t stay silent. Speak up, inform attorneys, and take note of which agencies engage in such deceptive tactics. By doing so, you help protect not only your livelihood but also the integrity of the legal system as a whole.

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. View more posts