Florida’s Embrace of Digital Court Reporting – A Controversial Shift in Legal Transcription

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

In recent years, Florida has emerged as a pioneer in integrating digital reporters into its court reporting framework. The Florida Court Reporters Association (FCRA) has introduced certifications like the Florida Professional Reporter (FPR™) and Florida Professional Reporter-Certified (FPR-C™) to accommodate both traditional stenographers and digital reporters.

Understanding the FPR™ and FPR-C™ Certifications

The FPR™ certification is a knowledge-based exam focusing on Florida-specific laws, ethics, and court procedures. It covers topics such as Florida’s Rules of Court, federal rules, appellate procedures, and transcript production. This certification is open to various professionals, including stenographic court reporters, students, scopists, and court reporting managers.

The FPR-C™ certification serves as a skills complement to the FPR™. It’s a voluntary examination designed for stenographic and voice writers, requiring candidates to demonstrate proficiency in real-time transcription using their own equipment.

Who Transcribes the Record?

One important distinction in Florida’s evolving court reporting model is who actually produces the transcript. The answer varies based on the reporter’s method:

  • Stenographers (machine or voice writers) who hold the FPR typically both report verbatim and then transcribe the proceeding using steno machines or voice technology. They produce the final transcript themselves.
  • Digital reporters with the FPR, on the other hand, capture high-quality audio recordings of legal proceedings but do not always transcribe the recordings personally. Instead, they may:
    • Monitor and annotate the recording in real-time,
    • Then send the audio to a separate unlicensed transcriptionist or editing team,
    • With the final transcript reviewed for accuracy before submission.

This model increases flexibility, but also introduces more variables into the transcript production chain.

Potential Benefits of Florida’s Approach

  1. Addressing the Stenographer Shortage: By recognizing digital reporters, Florida aims to mitigate the nationwide shortage of stenographers, ensuring that court proceedings are adequately documented.
  2. Flexibility and Inclusivity: The certifications accommodate a broader range of professionals, including those using digital recording methods, thereby expanding the pool of qualified court reporters.
  3. Standardization of Knowledge: The FPR™ ensures that all certified reporters, regardless of their method, possess a uniform understanding of Florida’s legal and ethical standards.

Concerns and Potential Risks

While Florida’s inclusive approach offers solutions to certain challenges, it also raises several concerns:

  1. Accuracy and Reliability: Digital recording methods may lack the real-time accuracy of traditional stenography, potentially leading to errors in legal transcripts.
  2. Security and Confidentiality: Electronic recordings are susceptible to technical failures and unauthorized access, posing risks to the confidentiality of sensitive legal information.
  3. Erosion of Professional Standards: The voluntary nature of the FPR-C™ skills test may lead to inconsistencies in the proficiency levels of certified reporters.
  4. Potential Devaluation of Stenographic Expertise: Equating digital recording methods with traditional stenography might undermine the specialized skills and training that stenographers possess.
  5. Outsourced Transcription: With digital reporters often outsourcing the transcription process, there may be less accountability or quality control compared to a single professional managing both the recording and transcript creation.
  6. Lack of Responsible Charge: Perhaps one of the most fundamental concerns is that digital reporters are not considered the “responsible charge” of the record. In legal proceedings, the individual in responsible charge is ultimately accountable for the integrity, accuracy, and timely delivery of the official transcript. Stenographers and voice writers, who both capture and transcribe the record, assume this responsibility by default. However, digital reporters who record proceedings and hand off transcription duties to third parties create a fragmented chain of custody over the legal record. This raises serious concerns about who is held accountable if errors or disputes arise.

Implications for Other States

Florida’s model could influence other states to reconsider their court reporting standards. However, it’s crucial to balance the integration of digital methods with the maintenance of high professional standards to ensure the integrity of legal proceedings.

Other states adopting this model may experience short-term relief from staffing shortages, but must also be prepared to regulate a more complex ecosystem of audio technicians, transcriptionists, and editors. Without strict oversight, this model could compromise transcript accuracy and court transparency.

Conclusion

Florida’s initiative to incorporate digital reporters through certifications like the FPR™ and FPR-C™ represents a significant shift in the court reporting landscape. While it addresses certain practical challenges, it’s imperative to critically assess the potential implications to uphold the accuracy, reliability, and professionalism essential to the legal system.

As other states consider following Florida’s lead, they must weigh the benefits of flexibility and accessibility against the risks of reduced quality control and weakened accountability in the judicial record.

Example of a digital reporter using an FPR certification. She has no steno machine or voice training. She was a paralegal who got her Florida FPR certification in 2017 and is now calling herself a “certified court reporter” because she has her Florida FPR credential. See for yourself.

Post-Conclusion Follow-Up

Following the publication of this article, several responses highlighted important clarifications about the role of digital reporters in Florida and the position of the Florida Court Reporters Association (FCRA). Notably, FCRA does not currently recognize or embrace digital court reporters as members, nor does it allow them to hold the FPR™ certification. While some digital reporters were able to take the FPR exam when it was first created in 2007, FCRA has since restricted the credential to stenographic and voice writers.

The confusion may partly stem from the fact that Florida’s court system uses a mix of official reporters, freelance reporters, and in-house digital reporters depending on the judicial circuit. However, those digital reporters do not transcribe proceedings themselves, and their role is distinct from that of certified court reporters.

Additionally, concerns have been raised about individuals using the FPR designation despite no longer being eligible or active members of FCRA. This includes reported cases like a digital reporter issued the FPR in 2017 who continues to identify publicly as a certified court reporter—a title that may mislead the public and clients about the nature of her certification and professional standing.

These developments underscore the complexity of the debate and the need for transparency, clear credentialing, and public education. As other states, like Georgia, move to allow digital reporters into their associations, it becomes even more urgent for professional bodies, courts, and agencies to establish consistent policies and enforce ethical use of credentials. Without clear boundaries, the public’s trust in the integrity of the legal record could be at risk.

How to Address Fraudulent Use of the FPR™ Credential

The integrity of professional credentials like the Florida Professional Reporter (FPR™) is essential to maintaining trust in the legal system. When someone misrepresents themselves as an FPR™ holder without current eligibility, it not only damages the reputation of the Florida Court Reporters Association (FCRA) but also misleads clients and the public. Here’s a practical summary of steps to address this issue:

  1. Report to FCRA:
    Start by contacting the FCRA ethics committee or board. Provide the individual’s name, public profiles (such as LinkedIn or websites), and evidence of how they are presenting themselves as an FPR™ or certified court reporter. FCRA can investigate and, if needed, issue a cease-and-desist.
  2. Check State Regulations:
    While Florida does not license court reporters statewide, misrepresenting professional credentials can fall under deceptive business practices. You can file a complaint with the Florida Attorney General’s Office or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which handles consumer protection issues.
  3. Alert Platforms and Agencies:
    If the person is advertising the FPR™ credential on platforms like LinkedIn, business websites, or agency directories, report the false credentialing directly to those platforms or notify the agencies they work with. Many sites prohibit misrepresentation under their terms of service.
  4. Send a Direct Notice:
    Optionally, FCRA or an attorney can send a formal notice letter directly to the individual, advising them that their use of the FPR™ title is unauthorized and must stop immediately. A legal warning often prompts quick correction.
  5. Ensure Verification Before Public Action:
    It’s crucial to confirm the facts before making any public accusations. Publicly labeling someone as “fraudulent” without solid verification can expose you to defamation risks. Let official bodies handle the investigation and response.

By following these steps, you help uphold the standards of the court reporting profession and ensure that respected credentials like the FPR™ retain their value and credibility. With the increasing mix of traditional and digital reporters in the legal field, clear boundaries and enforcement are more important than ever.

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.

3 thoughts on “Florida’s Embrace of Digital Court Reporting – A Controversial Shift in Legal Transcription”

  1. Please retract or correct the incorrect statement of “The Florida Court Reporters Association (FCRA) has introduced certifications like the Florida Professional Reporter (FPR™) and Florida Professional Reporter-Certified (FPR-C™) to accommodate both traditional stenographers and digital reporters.” FCRA does not offer the certifications to digital reporters. The tests are to certify stenographers and voice writers. It is not offered to digital reporters.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Pingback: Protecting the Integrity of the FPR™ Credential – What We Can Do About Fraudulent Use – STENOIMPERIUM

Leave a comment