The Digital Court Reporting Scam – How Aspiring Court Reporters Are Being Duped

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Steno StudentsTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged in the legal industry: prospective court reporting students are being misled into enrolling in digital court reporting programs that, in many cases, will not help them achieve their career goals. In states like California, where digital recording of legal proceedings is illegal, these programs are particularly problematic. Many students believe they are training to become licensed court reporters, only to find out later that their coursework is virtually useless in their state.

The Rise of Digital Court Reporting Programs

Traditional court reporting, which relies on highly-trained stenographers to transcribe proceedings verbatim in real time, is a crucial element of the legal system. However, with these self-proclaimed advancements in technology (they’re not advancements), some institutions and private organizations have begun pushing a different model—digital court reporting. In this approach, rather than using stenographic shorthand reporters, proceedings are recorded using digital audio equipment, and transcripts are later produced from the recordings by unlicensed workers, sometimes located overseas. This is not an advancement in technology by any means!

In fact, this method is a step backward for court reporting, taking it back nearly a century. According to the Court Reporters Board (CRB), a transcript must be taken down live, with the court reporter witnessing and recording proceedings verbatim in real time. Any later additions or modifications to the transcript are not allowed and are considered nonexistent from a legal standpoint. If a court reporter did not capture the words on their stenographic machine as they were spoken, those words are deemed never to have been said, and the reporter cannot certify the transcript.

In fact, court reporters are not required to take down testimony of a video deposition played in court because they were not present when the video was originally recorded. CA Local Rule of Court 2.1040.(d). The California Court Reporters Board (CRB) has ruled that a licensed and certified court reporter must be physically present at the proceedings to authenticate and certify the transcript.

While digital court reporting might not be prohibited by licensure requirements in some states, it is entirely prohibited in states like California, and some 24 other states where licensing requirements exist. The problem arises when students are not properly informed about these restrictions before enrolling in digital court reporting programs. Many institutions, including universities, offer these courses without disclosing that they do not lead to licensure in states where stenography is required.

A Case in Point: CSUSB’s Digital Court Reporting Program

A recent Facebook comment highlights the growing concern about such programs. One individual reported that a prospective student reached out, asking if a particular university’s digital court reporting program was all she needed to become a court reporter. The student had been considering enrolling in the California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB) Digital Court Reporting program, under the assumption that it would provide the necessary training to enter the profession.

However, this program, like many others, is misleading in its presentation. The course description states that it prepares students to take the AAERT Certified Electronic Reporter Exam, but does not clarify that this certification is not valid in California for court reporters. In fact, in California:

  • Digital recording of legal proceedings is illegal in courtrooms. In order for transcripts to be admitted as evidence in CA courts, it must be certified by a CA CSR. Under California Code of Civil Procedure 2025.330, depositions must be reported by an authorized officer, meaning, a certified court reporter (CSR), to ensure accuracy and reliability.
  • Using the term “Digital Court Reporter” is illegal in CA.
  • A Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) license is required to work as a court reporter in CA and 24 other states.

Despite these facts, CSUSB and similar programs continue to market digital court reporting courses without clearly stating that they do not meet California’s legal requirements. This creates confusion among students, many of whom only discover the truth after spending time and money on the program.

The Consequences for Misled Students

When students unknowingly enroll in digital court reporting programs, they often face devastating consequences:

  1. Wasted Time and Money – Many students invest thousands of dollars in coursework that ultimately does not help them become licensed court reporters.
  2. No Career Path in Their State – Students in California, for example, cannot legally work as court reporters using digital recording methods, rendering their training useless.
  3. False Sense of Readiness – Graduates of these programs may believe they are prepared to enter the workforce, only to discover they need to start over with a legitimate stenographic court reporting program.
  4. Lost Trust in the Education System – Institutions that offer these misleading programs contribute to a growing distrust of higher education and vocational training providers.

Why Universities Offer These Programs

If digital court reporting is not a viable career path in states like California, why do universities continue to offer these programs? The answer is simple: profit.

Many educational institutions have partnered with online training providers to offer career development courses without fully vetting their applicability to state regulations. These programs often operate on a revenue-sharing model, where the university benefits financially from enrollments without taking responsibility for student outcomes. As a result, students are left with subpar education and no real career prospects, while the university profits from their tuition fees.

How to Avoid Falling for a Digital Court Reporting Scam

If you are considering a career in court reporting, take the following steps to ensure you enroll in a legitimate program:

  1. Research Your State’s Requirements – Before signing up for any course, check the licensing and certification requirements for court reporters in your state. In California, only Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) can legally work in courtrooms. Check with the California Court Reporters Board (CRB). States with licensing requirements have their own Court Reporters Board.
  2. Verify Accreditation – Legitimate court reporting programs should be accredited by the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), the only recognized accrediting body for stenographic machine court reporting programs in the country. While stenographic voicewriting programs are growing in popularity, and California has received legislative approval for them, the NCRA has yet to recognize voicewriters, meaning there are currently no accredited programs for voicewriting anywhere in the U.S. Additionally, in California, the only NCRA-accredited shorthand reporter training program is South Coast College, in Orange, CA (my alma mater).
  3. Look for Stenographic Training – Any program that focuses on digital recording, rather than stenographic shorthand, is unlikely to meet licensing requirements in California and other states that require steno-based court reporting.
  4. Read the Fine Print – If a program claims to prepare you for certification, ensure that the certification is recognized in your state. In California, the only certification that matters for court reporting is the CSR license.
  5. Speak with Professionals in the Industry – Reach out to working court reporters or industry associations to get guidance on legitimate training options.

Advocacy and Awareness – Fighting Back Against Misleading Programs

The court reporting industry must take a stand against misleading digital court reporting programs. Advocacy groups, professional associations, and working court reporters can help by:

  • Educating prospective students about the risks of enrolling in digital court reporting programs that do not lead to licensure.
  • Pressuring universities to discontinue misleading programs or require them to provide full disclosure about the limitations of their coursework.
  • Lobbying for legal action against institutions that falsely advertise their programs as viable pathways to court reporting careers. (Hello, DRA and CCRA!)

Conclusion: The Need for Greater Transparency

The proliferation of digital court reporting programs is a growing concern, especially for students in states where these programs do not meet licensing requirements. Institutions that offer such programs without clear disclosures are doing a disservice to students, wasting their time and money while failing to prepare them for legitimate careers.

If you are considering a career in court reporting, do your due diligence before enrolling in any program. The only way to become a licensed court reporter in California is through an accredited stenographic training program that leads to a Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) license. Anything else is a costly detour that will leave you unqualified for the profession.

It’s time for universities and online education providers to take responsibility and provide honest, transparent information about their programs. Until then, prospective students must remain vigilant and informed to avoid falling victim to this growing educational scam.

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