Transcript Theft: The Silent Threat to Court Reporters

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For court reporters, every deposition presents its own unique challenges. Some days are smooth and efficient, while others can be long, exhausting, and fraught with unexpected difficulties. One issue that is becoming increasingly common in the field is the ambiguous and sometimes frustrating practice of attorneys discussing the “cost-sharing” of transcripts—only to later clarify that they intend to share a single transcript, rather than each ordering their own copies.

This practice raises concerns about fairness, ethics, and financial sustainability for court reporters, particularly in jurisdictions where the demand for real-time transcripts and expedited production is high. If you’re a court reporter facing this issue, you’re not alone.

A Shift in Attorney Practices

Recently, a long-time court reporter with decades of experience encountered a situation that reflects a growing trend. Before a deposition began, the attorneys informally discussed splitting the cost of the transcript. However, at the conclusion of the deposition, only the noticing attorney placed an order, leaving the reporter questioning whether the attorneys had always intended to share a single transcript rather than individually paying for their own copies.

This shift in behavior among legal professionals raises important questions:

  • Are attorneys becoming more strategic about reducing their costs at the expense of court reporters?
  • Is this an ethical gray area, or does it outright violate industry standards and policies?
  • What steps can court reporters take to protect their earnings and ensure proper transcript distribution?

The Business Side of Court Reporting

Many court reporters, especially those who have owned firms or worked independently, understand that transcript sales are a fundamental aspect of the profession. Unlike salaried employees, court reporters often rely on transcript orders as their primary source of income. When multiple attorneys rely on a single transcript instead of ordering their own copies, it directly impacts the reporter’s earnings.

While some firms have policies that require each attorney to place an order, enforcement can be inconsistent. Large court reporting agencies, often referred to as “big box” firms, may also prioritize volume over individual transcript sales, making it harder for reporters to push back on these practices.

The Noticing Attorney’s Power

In many jurisdictions, the noticing attorney is responsible for hiring the court reporter and is typically the party obligated to purchase the original transcript. However, this does not mean that other attorneys involved in the case should assume they are entitled to a free copy. The expectation should be that if they need a transcript, they should place an official order and pay for it accordingly.

Unfortunately, some attorneys—whether due to budget constraints, firm policies, or simple opportunism—choose to informally “share” a transcript, rather than ordering their own. This practice, while not necessarily illegal, is problematic because it undervalues the labor-intensive work of court reporters and reduces their earning potential.

Addressing Urgent Transcript Requests

Another challenge that often accompanies these situations is the expectation of quick turnaround times. In the case of the veteran reporter mentioned earlier, the noticing attorney casually stated they would call the firm if they wanted the transcript expedited by Monday. The reporter rightly pointed out that it would be best to discuss turnaround time directly with them, as they are the one responsible for actually producing the transcript.

This interaction highlights another growing concern: attorneys treating court reporters as interchangeable service providers, rather than skilled professionals with expertise in legal proceedings. The assumption that a transcript can be produced at a moment’s notice, without confirming availability with the actual reporter, reflects a lack of understanding (or appreciation) of the work involved.

Steps Court Reporters Can Take

So, how can court reporters navigate these issues and ensure they are fairly compensated for their work? Here are some strategies to consider:

1. Clarify Orders Before the Deposition Begins

At the start of each deposition, reporters should explicitly confirm who will be ordering a copy. If attorneys mention “splitting costs,” follow up with a direct question: “Just to clarify, will each of you be ordering your own copy of the transcript?” This puts them on the spot and discourages any ambiguity.

2. Work with Your Firm to Establish Policies

If you work for a larger agency, have a discussion about policies regarding transcript distribution. Some firms require attorneys to order their own copies to prevent cost-sharing abuses. If your firm doesn’t have such a policy, consider advocating for one.

3. Include Terms in Your Agreements

For independent court reporters and small firms, contracts should specify that each attorney must order their own copy if they wish to receive one. Having a clear, written policy can serve as protection against attorneys who attempt to circumvent standard practices.

4. Be Firm but Professional

When attorneys assume they can call the firm for expedited requests without consulting you, politely but firmly remind them that turnaround times must be discussed with the court reporter directly. For example, a simple statement like, “I want to ensure I can meet your deadline, so please confirm now if you need a rush order,” can prevent last-minute surprises.

5. Report Problematic Practices

If you repeatedly encounter attorneys engaging in unethical or questionable transcript-sharing practices, consider reporting the issue to your state’s court reporting association or regulatory board. Some states have guidelines that address these concerns, and bringing awareness to the issue can lead to industry-wide improvements.

The Future of Court Reporting in a Changing Legal Landscape

As the legal industry evolves, court reporters must stay proactive in protecting their work and ensuring fair compensation. The rise of digital reporting and AI-driven transcription services has already created challenges for traditional stenographers. Adding issues like transcript-sharing only makes it more important for reporters to advocate for their value and push back against practices that undermine their livelihood.

While there may be days when the job is frustrating, court reporters play a crucial role in the justice system. Without accurate, timely transcripts, legal proceedings would suffer immensely. The more reporters stand up for their rights and establish clear expectations with attorneys, the better the profession will be for all involved.

Have you experienced similar situations with transcript orders? How do you handle attorneys who try to share one copy instead of purchasing their own? Let’s continue the conversation and work towards solutions that benefit the entire court reporting community.

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