The Rise of Private Gatekeepers in Freelance Court Reporting

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

For many court reporters, especially freelancers, online groups have become vital tools for finding work. Facebook groups, listservs, and community forums often act as informal job boards where agencies or reporters post upcoming needs for coverage—depositions, hearings, and trial work. In theory, these groups are a great way to match demand with available talent. In practice, however, some of these spaces are becoming more about social cliques than professional networks.

Reporters have complained that certain group admins—who may be working reporters themselves—are using their position to play favorites, distributing jobs to friends or withholding opportunities from those they dislike or deem unworthy. One particular concern involves long-form trial work, which can be lucrative and career-defining. Rather than allowing open bidding or fair rotation, these jobs are allegedly being handed off to a select few, often behind closed doors.

The Problem with “CSR Brokers” and Pay-to-Play Gatekeeping

This kind of job brokering has a name in the industry: “CSR brokers.” These individuals act like mini-agencies within the freelance ecosystem. They’re not necessarily licensed agencies, but often serve as middlemen—grabbing a job lead from a client or platform, then redistributing it to another reporter (sometimes for a cut of the pay).

But there’s a deeper layer to the issue. According to multiple freelance reporters, these so-called gatekeepers aren’t just handing out jobs to friends—they’re also receiving kickbacks from agencies in exchange for help covering jobs. These perks can include priority access to higher-paying assignments, exclusive job leads, or other forms of compensation that aren’t made transparent to the rest of the group.

In effect, some of these moderators and brokers are operating under a pay-to-play system, leveraging their group control for personal gain. That’s not just unethical—it might also be legally questionable, particularly if the group presents itself as a neutral professional forum, but is functioning more like a closed-loop business with under-the-table deals.

Is It Legal to Exclude People From Job Alerts?

The legality of these exclusionary and self-serving practices depends on a number of factors, but there are strong arguments to suggest that such behavior could be unlawful—especially if the group or its moderators are making money or functioning like a business.

Discriminatory Practices: If someone is excluded from job opportunities based on protected characteristics—such as age, race, gender, or disability—that’s a clear violation of anti-discrimination laws. Even if exclusion is based on personal opinion or hearsay, the reporter being denied work could potentially argue defamation or interference with prospective economic advantage.

Unfair Competition: When moderators or CSR brokers manipulate access to job postings to favor friends or to secure personal financial gain, it may fall under the category of unfair business practices. In California, for example, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is broad enough to potentially cover these situations, especially if they result in economic harm to another working professional.

Labor Law Considerations: If a group is operating as a quasi-employment board and taking compensation or perks for placements, it may fall under labor board jurisdiction. Misclassifying the relationship, or failing to operate as a registered agency, could open the door to regulatory consequences.

Professional Harm and Industry-Wide Consequences

The impact of favoritism and exclusion goes beyond individual hurt or lost income. It affects the credibility of the entire industry. Court reporting is a profession rooted in trust, accuracy, and impartiality. When job opportunities become subject to popularity contests or social alliances—or worse, when group leaders are profiting from their control over access—it weakens the foundation of that trust.

Furthermore, young or newly licensed reporters—who often rely heavily on these groups to break into the field—are particularly vulnerable. They may find themselves permanently sidelined not because of lack of skill, but because of who they know (or don’t know). This discourages new talent, reinforces toxic hierarchies, and contributes to burnout among those trying to make an honest living.

Transparency, Accountability, and Reform

So what can be done? Here are a few ways the industry—and those within it—can move toward a more fair and legal model of job sharing:

  1. Open Job Boards: Professional organizations and independent platforms should commit to open-access job boards, where all qualified reporters can see and apply for work without discrimination.
  2. Moderator Ethics Guidelines: Group moderators should be held to clear standards of fairness, transparency, and accountability. If a group presents itself as a professional network, it must be managed professionally—with disclosures if financial incentives are involved.
  3. Agency Oversight: States should consider implementing or strengthening oversight for those who broker court reporting jobs without operating as licensed agencies. If you’re making money by controlling access to work, you should be subject to the same rules as a registered business.
  4. Legal Action: Excluded reporters may need to explore legal remedies. This could involve consulting labor attorneys, filing complaints with professional boards, or even pursuing civil claims in cases of economic harm.
  5. Community Advocacy: Reporters should unite to expose favoritism, call out unethical practices, and support peers who’ve been unfairly treated. Peer-led initiatives that promote transparency can go a long way in restoring trust.

Final Thoughts

Court reporters are the guardians of the record—an essential part of the justice system. They deserve an industry that treats them fairly and transparently. While informal job networks can be a great way to connect professionals with opportunities, they must not become tools of exclusion, favoritism, or secret financial arrangements. If someone is qualified, certified, and available, they should have an equal shot at the job. Anything less isn’t just unethical—it could be illegal.

The path forward requires awareness, accountability, and collective action. Freelancers shouldn’t have to rely on favoritism or backroom deals to feed their families. It’s time for the court reporting community to demand better: end the pay-to-play gatekeeping, stop the favoritism, and restore fairness to the profession.

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