The Silent Squeeze! How Insurance Companies and Contracting Are Crippling Court Reporters—and How to Fight Back

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

For decades, court reporters have been the quiet backbone of the legal system—meticulously recording testimony, ensuring accurate transcripts, and supporting the machinery of justice. Yet over the past 30 years, a growing threat has chipped away at the profession: insurance companies contracting with court reporting agencies. What was once a collaborative, local industry driven by relationships and reputation has become increasingly monopolized, opaque, and exploitative. As large agencies secure exclusive deals with insurers, thousands of independent court reporters and small firms have seen their businesses gutted. This isn’t just an industry inconvenience—it’s a structural crisis. And unless meaningful action is taken, court reporting as a viable profession may not survive.

Understanding the Contracting Problem

At the heart of this issue is the practice of contracting, where insurance companies form long-term exclusive agreements with large court reporting agencies to handle proceedings like Examinations Under Oath (EUOs), depositions, and more. On its surface, this might seem like simple business logistics. But in reality, it’s often illegal, anti-competitive, and deeply harmful to working reporters.

More than 30 U.S. states have laws or ethics rules in place that prohibit or restrict these kinds of third-party contracts. These laws exist to maintain impartiality, prevent conflicts of interest, and preserve a level playing field for professionals. But enforcement is minimal or nonexistent. As a result, insurance companies and large agencies continue these arrangements unchecked, often under the radar, leaving solo practitioners and small businesses at a devastating disadvantage.

Real-World Consequences

For many court reporters, the consequences of contracting are personal and painful:

  • Loss of long-time clients: Attorneys are often told by insurers that they must use a particular court reporting agency, regardless of prior relationships or preference. The implication is clear: comply or risk losing insurance coverage or client support. As a result, even reporters with decades-long client relationships find themselves ghosted overnight.
  • Unfair competition: Big-box reporting firms—often backed by venture capital—can offer perks that independent firms simply cannot. From deep rate discounts to luxury travel packages, they lure in clients with benefits that have nothing to do with the quality of their reporting services.
  • Ethical erosion: The impartiality of the transcript is fundamental to justice. But when the agency that hires the reporter is beholden to an insurance company with a financial interest in the outcome, can we really trust the neutrality of the process?
  • Economic devastation: Reporters in states like California, Florida, and Alabama have reported losing 50% or more of their clients due to contracting. Many have been forced to close their businesses altogether. These are not isolated incidents—they are part of a national trend.
  • Data and privacy concerns: Large agencies tied to insurers often compile extensive databases of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys. These massive repositories of sensitive information are shared, analyzed, and monetized without regulation or oversight. Meanwhile, transcription jobs are increasingly being outsourced overseas to cut costs, raising further security red flags.

Why Isn’t Anyone Doing Anything?

The truth is, court reporters have been sounding the alarm for years, but their concerns have largely fallen on deaf ears. Attorneys, often overworked and unaware of the deeper implications, comply with insurer directives. Judges remain mostly uninvolved. And legislators haven’t felt the pressure to act.

Even when reporters file complaints, enforcement agencies rarely act. In many cases, they claim that it’s unclear who has jurisdiction. It’s a legal gray zone that benefits those with money and power—and leaves individual reporters without recourse.

How We Fight Back: Actionable Steps

If this pattern continues, court reporting risks becoming a commodity rather than a profession. But the tide can turn. Here’s how:

1. Organize, Organize, Organize

Independent reporters must join together—state by state and nationally—to push back. State associations should make contracting enforcement a central advocacy issue. Unions or cooperatives could be formed to pool resources and create stronger collective bargaining power.

2. Push for Enforcement of Existing Laws

Most states already have laws that prohibit or limit these kinds of contracts. The problem isn’t a lack of legislation—it’s lack of enforcement. Reporters can pressure state bar associations, judicial councils, and regulatory boards to start holding bad actors accountable.

3. Educate Attorneys

Many attorneys do not realize they have a choice or that these contracts may be unethical or illegal. Providing information—through seminars, handouts, or one-on-one conversations—can empower lawyers to push back on insurer demands. Remind them: a biased transcript serves no one in the long run.

4. Public Awareness Campaigns

Use media, social platforms, and op-eds to shine a light on this issue. Public concern over data privacy, outsourcing, and justice system transparency is growing. The court reporting industry can align its message with these broader movements.

5. Develop Alternative Networks

Instead of working through agencies that prioritize contracts over quality, independent reporters can create their own referral networks, listing services, or nationwide platforms that connect attorneys directly with experienced, vetted reporters. Technology doesn’t have to be the enemy—it can be the solution.

6. Litigate

If enough evidence can be gathered showing harm, anti-competitive behavior, or data violations, class action lawsuits or challenges under state business ethics laws could force major change. One well-timed lawsuit could set a precedent.

7. Advocate for New Rules

In states where contracting laws are weak or vague, industry groups should lobby for clear rules and strict penalties. Ban third-party contracting outright or require full disclosure and approval from both parties involved in litigation.

A Glimmer of Hope

Although the damage is real and ongoing, many reporters note that attorneys do eventually care—often after experiencing the downsides of working with large agencies. Late reporters, inaccurate transcripts, poor communication—these issues eventually reach a tipping point. And when that happens, many lawyers find themselves trying to get back in touch with the very reporters they were forced to abandon.

The question is: Will there still be an independent reporting industry left by then?

Conclusion

The contracting of court reporting services by insurance companies is not just a business trend—it’s a legal, ethical, and professional crisis. It undermines the impartiality of the justice system, destroys small businesses, and prioritizes cost over quality. But reporters are not powerless. By organizing, advocating, and educating, they can push back and reclaim their profession.

Because court reporters are not just service providers. They are guardians of the record. And the integrity of that record depends on who holds the pen—and who holds the power.

Here’s a Flyer you can use, add a website of your choice at the bottom, make into post cards to pass out to court reporters and attorneys.

Here is a flyer you can pass out to attorneys.

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