Transcript Theft and Timeless Pricing Contributes To The Court Reporting Crisis

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

In the intricate gears of the justice system, court reporters are the invisible hands preserving every word, pause, and objection. They are the guardians of the record, yet their profession is being quietly undermined—not by irrelevance, but by an outdated pay model and widespread misuse of their work.

At the core of the crisis is a mid-century pricing structure that never caught up to 21st-century technology. Court reporters have traditionally been compensated not for their time in the chair, but for sales of the original transcript and copies. That system made sense when copies meant retyping pages or using carbon paper. Today? A transcript can be duplicated in seconds, and that has led many attorneys to devalue, disregard, or outright steal the reporter’s work.

A Broken Business Model Meets a Culture of Convenience

Here’s the friction: Most attorneys today treat a “copy” of a transcript the same way they treat a photocopy—expecting it to cost pennies or to be freely shared among colleagues. But in most states, including California, the law is clear: only the purchasing party is entitled to a copy, and the reporter retains control over the distribution of their work.

The pricing problem is compounded by legal misunderstanding. In California, Government Code § 69950 sets the official fees court reporters may charge for originals and copies in superior court. But the statute doesn’t address ownership or sharing of those transcripts.

That’s governed by other laws:

  • California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.510 states that the deposition officer (the reporter) holds the original transcript in custody and transmits it to the noticing attorney. Only parties who pay for a copy are entitled to one.
  • Federal Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S. Code) gives reporters ownership of their transcripts as original works. Unauthorized reproduction, scanning, or sharing—even between co-counsel—may constitute copyright infringement.

In plain terms: if an attorney didn’t pay for the transcript, they have no right to share or receive it. Yet this violation happens daily—quietly, pervasively, and without consequence.

Ethical Erosion and the Silent Epidemic

The implications are more than financial. This unchecked sharing undermines the very structure that reporters rely on to make a living. Reporters often spend hours transcribing proceedings, editing, certifying, and delivering accurate transcripts—only to see their work distributed for free or passed around like office memos.

Some attorneys may be unaware they’re violating the law. Others assume that because digital copying is effortless, it must also be free. But every unauthorized copy is a loss of income, and for freelancers and small firms, that can be the difference between survival and collapse.

A Bold but Simple Fix – Flip the Fee Structure

As one industry observer put it, “We’re still operating on a 1950s cost paradigm.” And that’s the heart of the problem. To truly fix this broken system, the profession must adopt a pricing model that reflects modern expectations.

Here’s the solution:

  • Load all transcript production and profit costs into the original transcript price.
  • Reduce the cost of copies to mere cents—or even allow unlimited free duplication.
  • Empower attorneys to share freely only after the original is paid for in full.

This realignment achieves multiple goals:

  • Meets attorney expectations for low-cost, digital-friendly access.
  • Ensures fair compensation for the reporter through the original sale.
  • Discourages piracy by eliminating the incentive to “sneak a copy.”

And if multiple parties want the transcript? Let them split the cost of the original however they like. That’s a market decision, not a legal loophole.

The Profession Must Lead the Change

This transformation won’t be easy. Some reporters will hesitate to raise rates for fear of losing work. Some attorneys will resist paying more upfront. But without change, the profession remains vulnerable, undervalued, and underpaid.

It’s time for court reporters—and the associations and firms that represent them—to push for a pricing structure that reflects both legal ownership and technological reality. Education, enforcement, and ethical clarity will all be part of that shift.

Because in the end, the integrity of the record is only as strong as the system that supports those who create it.

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