How court reporting agencies rip off poor court reporters — and get away with it

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

Court reporters play a crucial role in the legal system, ensuring that every word spoken in depositions, trials, and hearings is accurately recorded. Their work is fundamental to justice, yet many find themselves struggling financially, not because of a lack of skill or dedication, but due to exploitative practices by court reporting agencies. These agencies, which act as middlemen between court reporters and law firms, often manipulate pay structures, impose unfair fees, and withhold essential work, leaving many hardworking professionals underpaid and overworked.

The Exploitation Begins: Unfair Pay Structures

Court reporters are typically classified as independent contractors rather than employees, which means they receive no benefits, no job security, and must cover their own expenses. Despite this classification, many agencies control every aspect of a reporter’s work, from scheduling to rate setting, creating a power imbalance that allows for significant exploitation.

One of the primary ways agencies take advantage of court reporters is by paying them only for transcripts and not for the time spent in proceedings. A court reporter might sit through an eight-hour deposition, but if the attorney chooses not to order a transcript, the reporter often earns nothing. This practice results in long hours of unpaid labor, an arrangement that disproportionately affects newer reporters who lack the connections to secure high-volume, well-paying jobs.

Additionally, agencies often take an enormous cut of transcript fees. While a law firm may pay several dollars per page for a transcript, the reporter’s share of that payment is often shockingly low. Some agencies claim as much as 50% or more of the fees, leaving the reporter with a fraction of what they actually earned through their labor. Agencies also don’t share with reporters any part of exhibit fees or add-ons, such as a word concordance and condensed, and other fees.

Hidden Fees and Unfair Costs

To add insult to injury, many agencies impose hidden fees on court reporters, further reducing their already meager earnings. These fees come in various forms, including:

  • Administrative Fees: Some agencies charge court reporters for basic services such as transcript storage or document processing, even though these should be standard operational costs covered by the agency itself.
  • Software and Equipment Costs: Court reporters must provide their own steno machines, computers, and specialized software, which can cost thousands of dollars. Many agencies, however, demand that reporters use specific (often expensive) software and refuse to reimburse any of these costs.
  • Transcript Copy Sales: In many cases, agencies resell transcripts to multiple parties, but do not share these additional earnings with the reporter. A transcript that a court reporter was paid for once may be sold multiple times at full price, yet the reporter sees none of that extra revenue.
  • Scoping and Proofreading Costs: Court reporters must hire their own subcontractors who provide scoping and proofreading services. Sometimes agencies use their own in-house proofreaders and pass the cost onto the court reporters.

The Threat of Blacklisting

Court reporting agencies maintain tight control over the industry, and one of their most effective tools for silencing dissent is the threat of blacklisting. Reporters who question unfair pay, demand better working conditions, or refuse to accept exploitative contracts often find themselves suddenly without work. Agencies may label them as “difficult” and quietly ensure they receive fewer job assignments or none at all.

This practice keeps many reporters in line, fearful that speaking out will cost them their livelihoods. Because agencies control the vast majority of legal work opportunities, being blacklisted by even one major player can mean months without income. This power dynamic makes it extremely difficult for reporters to push back against unfair practices or advocate for better conditions.

Delays in Payment

Another common tactic agencies use to take advantage of court reporters is delaying payment. Many court reporters wait weeks or even months or years to receive money they earned, making it difficult to manage personal finances. Some agencies operate on a “pay when paid” model, meaning that reporters don’t get paid until the agency receives money from the law firm or client. This can lead to financial instability, especially for independent contractors who rely on timely payments to cover their expenses.

In some cases, agencies will even use delaying tactics to pressure reporters into accepting lower rates. If a reporter complains about slow payment, the agency may suggest they take a pay cut in exchange for faster processing, effectively coercing them into accepting unfair wages in desperation.

Lack of Legal Protections

Despite being integral to the legal system, court reporters have little legal recourse when they are exploited by agencies. Labor laws often do not protect independent contractors in the same way they protect traditional employees, leaving reporters with few options to challenge unfair treatment.

Attempts to unionize or collectively bargain are often crushed before they gain traction. Agencies exploit the fact that reporters work in isolation, making it difficult to organize effectively. Furthermore, legal action against agencies is costly and time-consuming, making it an impractical option for most reporters who are already struggling financially.

How Agencies Get Away With It

The primary reason court reporting agencies continue to exploit reporters with impunity is the lack of regulation in the industry. Unlike salaried employees, court reporters do not have the protection of minimum wage laws, overtime pay, or benefits. Agencies use this lack of oversight to maximize their profits while minimizing costs, creating an environment where they hold all the power.

Additionally, the complexity of court reporting work means that most outsiders—including attorneys and clients—do not fully understand the financial struggles reporters face. This ignorance allows agencies to continue their exploitative practices without pushback from those who use their services.

What Can Be Done?

While the current situation is bleak, there are steps that can be taken to fight back against exploitative agencies:

  1. Advocate for Regulation: Stronger labor laws protecting independent contractors in the legal field could help prevent many of these abuses. Legislative efforts should focus on ensuring fair pay, timely payments, and greater transparency in transcript sales.
  2. Transparency in Fee Structures: Agencies should be required to disclose exactly how much of the transcript fee goes to the reporter versus the agency itself. This would allow reporters to make more informed decisions about which agencies to work with.
  3. Unionization Efforts: While difficult, collective bargaining among court reporters could help push back against unfair practices. Strength in numbers could allow reporters to demand better rates and working conditions.
  4. Direct Contracting: More court reporters should consider working directly with law firms instead of relying on agencies. By cutting out the middleman, reporters could retain more of their earnings and have greater control over their work.
  5. Educating Attorneys and Clients: Many lawyers and clients are unaware of how little court reporters are paid for their work. Educating them about these issues could encourage them to demand fairer payment structures from agencies.

Conclusion

Court reporting agencies have created a system where they profit immensely off the labor of hardworking reporters while leaving those same reporters struggling to make ends meet. Through unfair pay structures, hidden fees, blacklisting, delayed payments, and a lack of legal protections, agencies have built an exploitative business model that continues largely unchecked.

However, change is possible. By pushing for better regulations, increasing industry transparency, and encouraging collective action among court reporters, the industry can move toward a fairer and more sustainable future. The people who document the words of justice deserve to be treated with fairness and respect—not as disposable workers whose labor is undervalued and taken for granted.

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