The Silent Breach – How Attorneys Are Illegally Sharing Court Transcripts in Violation of California Law

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the intricate web of litigation, where procedural precision is paramount, one often overlooked regulation is causing waves beneath the surface of California’s legal community. Governed by California Government Code § 69954(d), strict rules limit how court transcripts may be used and shared. Yet increasingly, a troubling trend has emerged: attorneys sharing purchased transcripts with opposing law firms without authorization, in direct violation of the law.

Understanding Government Code § 69954(d)

California’s Government Code § 69954(d) is clear in its mandate:

“Any court, party, or person who has purchased a transcript may, without paying a further fee to the reporter, reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an exhibit pursuant to court order or rule, or for internal use, but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to any other party or person.”

This provision serves several important purposes:

  • Protecting Court Reporter Revenue: Court reporters invest significant skill, time, and effort into creating an accurate record. They are compensated not just for the initial transcription, but through the regulated sale of certified copies.
  • Maintaining Chain of Custody and Integrity: Controlling transcript distribution ensures the integrity of the official record.
  • Upholding Fairness: Equal access to records ensures no party gains an unfair advantage by obtaining copies through unauthorized channels.

Purchasing a transcript grants a party certain limited rights—such as using it internally or submitting it as an exhibit when ordered by a court—but it does not authorize resale or sharing with others, including co-counsel, third parties, or opposing attorneys.

The Growing Problem: Unauthorized Sharing Among Law Firms

Despite the clear restrictions, reports have surfaced of attorneys circumventing these rules. In many instances, an attorney who purchases a transcript will share it—whether by email, file share, or physical copy—with an opposing firm involved in the same or related litigation. This is often done casually, without acknowledgment of the legal implications.

The motivations vary:

  • Cost Savings: Purchasing multiple copies of transcripts can be expensive, especially for lengthy proceedings. Firms may rationalize sharing as a way to minimize litigation expenses.
  • Collaboration Pressures: In complex multi-party cases, opposing counsel may seek efficiency by pooling resources, including transcripts.
  • Ignorance of the Law: Some attorneys and staff are unaware of the restrictions outlined in § 69954(d), mistakenly believing that once purchased, a transcript is theirs to distribute freely.

Regardless of motive, unauthorized sharing is a direct violation of California law—and can have serious consequences.

Why Unauthorized Sharing Matters

1. Financial Harm to Court Reporters

Court reporters often operate as independent contractors or small businesses. Their income is heavily dependent on transcript sales. Unauthorized sharing undermines their rightful earnings and threatens the sustainability of the profession.

2. Violation of Ethical Obligations

Attorneys have a professional duty to uphold the law and to act with integrity. Disregarding transcript-sharing restrictions not only breaches statutory law but can also implicate ethical rules related to honesty and fairness.

3. Potential for Court Sanctions

Violations of court rules and statutes can lead to sanctions. If a court determines that an attorney engaged in unlawful sharing, the consequences could include monetary penalties, disqualification, or even disciplinary action before the State Bar.

4. Damage to Litigation Integrity

Unauthorized distribution of transcripts can raise questions about the authenticity and completeness of the records being relied upon, complicating proceedings and potentially leading to disputes over the official record.

Real-World Examples of Violations

Though many instances of illegal sharing are never formally reported, some cases have come to light through complaints filed by court reporters or discovery disputes revealing the misconduct.

In one situation, a deposition transcript purchased by one firm was quietly shared with three other parties in related litigation, depriving the court reporter of significant income. When the reporter discovered the violation, a motion was filed with the court to enforce transcript restrictions and recover lost fees, resulting in a court order reprimanding the attorneys involved.

In another case, a joint defense group informally circulated purchased transcripts among themselves without court authorization. After a reporter’s audit uncovered the sharing, multiple firms faced not only demands for unpaid transcript fees but also reputational damage within the court system.

Compliance Strategies for Attorneys

Given the risks, attorneys must take proactive steps to ensure compliance with § 69954(d):

  • Purchase Individual Copies: Each party requiring access should purchase their own copy directly from the court reporter.
  • Seek Court Orders Where Appropriate: In some cases, parties can seek a court order authorizing sharing under specific conditions.
  • Use Summaries Instead of Full Transcripts: When collaboration is necessary, attorneys can circulate their own written summaries of testimony (so long as they do not reproduce or distribute the actual transcript).
  • Educate Staff and Co-Counsel: Firms should train legal staff, paralegals, and co-counsel on the rules governing transcript use to avoid inadvertent violations.
  • Consult with Court Reporters: When in doubt, attorneys should consult directly with the court reporter to understand the permissible scope of transcript use.

Enforcement and the Future

There is a growing push within the court reporting industry to crack down on illegal sharing. Trade associations and individual reporters are increasingly vigilant, auditing transcript sales and usage. Some are lobbying for even stronger penalties for violators, recognizing that enforcement is key to maintaining the financial viability of their work.

Technological solutions are also being explored, such as watermarking transcripts with unique purchaser identifiers to deter and trace unauthorized sharing.

Ultimately, protecting the integrity of court transcripts protects the integrity of the entire legal system. Attorneys, as officers of the court, have a special responsibility to lead by example—respecting the law, honoring the rights of court reporters, and ensuring fair access to the judicial process.

Conclusion

The unauthorized sharing of court transcripts may seem like a minor infraction to some, but it strikes at the heart of the legal system’s commitment to fairness, integrity, and respect for all participants in the litigation process. California Government Code § 69954(d) is not a mere technicality; it is a necessary safeguard.

As awareness grows, so too must vigilance. Attorneys must remember that convenience or cost-saving cannot justify breaking the law. By respecting transcript rights and encouraging compliance within the legal community, they not only protect themselves from liability but also contribute to a more ethical and sustainable 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