In the often-overlooked world of court reporting, one issue continues to spark frustration and burnout: managing multi-reporter appeals. For many in the field, the role of “lead reporter” has become synonymous with “designated babysitter”—a role taken on not by choice, but by systemic inefficiency.
When it comes to compiling and filing appeals, especially in jurisdictions like Los Angeles County, the burden frequently falls on one reporter to corral contributions from several others. This process, as many seasoned professionals can attest, can stretch over weeks—or even months—requiring relentless follow-up, repeated requests, and emotional labor that far exceeds the scope of the job.
And yet, the real question lingers: Why is this still the system?
A Broken Model
At the heart of the issue is a model that requires one court reporter to gather, format, and submit not only their own transcripts, but those of every other reporter involved in a given case. This setup assumes a level of cooperation and organization that, frankly, is not always present.
It’s not uncommon for lead reporters to find themselves chasing down colleagues for transcripts, exhibits, certifications, or even basic communication. Emails go unanswered. Deadlines pass without updates. And in many cases, the silence isn’t due to ill intent—it’s due to an underlying issue of lack of standardized expectations, unfamiliarity with appeal procedures, or simply a broken workflow.
To put it bluntly: the process isn’t just inefficient—it’s demoralizing.
Communication Breakdown
Perhaps the most baffling piece of the puzzle is the lack of response from some court reporters involved in an appeal. In an age where we’re all constantly tethered to phones, emails, and job boards, failing to acknowledge a request—or even confirm receipt—is seen not only as irresponsible, but disrespectful.
Lead reporters often find themselves running detective work: digging through court minute orders, confirming dates, verifying the right email addresses, or determining whether a reporter was even present during the proceedings. It’s a tedious process that burns time, energy, and goodwill. Even more concerning, delays like these can jeopardize the entire appeal process—leading to missed deadlines, funding issues, and the potential for cases to be abandoned.
And yet, the burden always falls on one person.
Toward a Better System – Individual Accountability
So, what would a better system look like?
Imagine if each reporter involved in a case were responsible for submitting their own work—independently—by a set deadline. Simple. Logical. Fair. This would eliminate the bottleneck caused by one person having to collect, organize, and submit everyone’s files. Each reporter would retain responsibility for their transcript, their formatting, and their timely submission.
In fact, this system is already functional in other jurisdictions. In Michigan, for example, court reporters routinely submit their appeal transcripts as individual PDFs, labeled by date, each beginning on Page 1. There’s no need for special covers or sequential pagination across volumes. It’s cleaner, easier, and far less prone to the delays that plague multi-reporter submissions in other states.
Why can’t L.A. County—or any jurisdiction—do the same?
YesLaw and the Role of Technology
Another proposed solution is to centralize the process using platforms like YesLaw. When clerks issue the appeal order, they already know which dates and which reporters are involved. Why not use that information to open a shared workspace or submission portal?
From there, each reporter could upload their transcript directly into the system. YesLaw—or a similar platform—could handle the chronological ordering, ensuring consistency and completeness. If a reporter doesn’t submit, it’s immediately obvious. The missing file isn’t buried in a lead reporter’s inbox or lost in the shuffle of unanswered emails.
Notably, participation in YesLaw isn’t currently mandatory in some jurisdictions, which undermines the efficiency such a system could bring. But with proper implementation and training, this type of technology could remove much of the administrative burden that lead reporters currently shoulder.
Changing the Culture
At the core of this conversation lies a deeper issue: culture. There’s an ingrained expectation that if one reporter is designated the lead, they will “handle it.” That includes tracking down nonresponsive colleagues, dealing with incomplete files, requesting affidavits for missing days, and recalculating page counts due to unreported material.
But this expectation is toxic—and it’s burning out even the most dedicated professionals.
Court reporters need to start viewing appeal collaboration with the same urgency and professionalism they bring to live proceedings. That means answering emails. Meeting deadlines. Asking for help when needed. And above all, respecting the time and efforts of your colleagues.
Being unresponsive doesn’t just create more work for someone else—it directly harms the integrity of the case and the reputation of the profession.
The Case for Standardization
While appeals involve nuance, the actual process should not be a mystery. Most counties, including Los Angeles, have clear formatting manuals and procedural guidelines. These should be standard reading for every court reporter.
Moreover, more robust onboarding and training around appeal procedures should be instituted—especially for newer reporters. Not everyone is a seasoned pro, and many may simply be unsure of how to participate effectively in the appeals process.
That’s where mentorship, ongoing education, and clear expectations from the court and agencies come into play.
Time for a Leadership Shift
If this system is to change, it needs to happen at the administrative level. Court administrations, unions, and professional organizations should advocate for individual submission systems, mandatory training, and digital portals that reduce dependency on a single lead reporter.
Whether the solution lies in reforming YesLaw practices, creating official policy updates, or simply implementing a shared responsibility structure, the time for change is now.
Final Thoughts
Court reporters are some of the most skilled professionals in the legal system. They handle rapid-fire dialogue, technical jargon, and high-stakes pressure with unmatched precision. There is no reason those same professionals should be reduced to babysitting their peers during the appeals process.
Let’s stop normalizing disorganization. Let’s stop excusing silence. Let’s stop punishing those who step up to lead.
Instead, let’s build a system where responsibility is shared, communication is expected, and professionalism is the norm—not the exception.
The courts—and your colleagues—deserve better.
STENOIMPERIUM 