---

For years, the public has heard repeated alarms about a court reporter shortage—claims of vanishing stenographers, unfilled jobs, and impending crises in courtrooms. But scratch the surface, and a different picture emerges: one of orchestrated hype, driven by corporate interests, court administrators, and tech vendors eager to replace skilled professionals with automated systems.

Below, we take a hard look at the data often cited to justify this so-called “shortage”—and challenge the narrative that it’s real.

---

🔍 Myth #1: “There’s a 26% Vacancy in LA County”

Claim: Los Angeles County Superior Court reported 117 vacancies, or a 26% shortfall in court reporter positions.

• Who controls this data? Court administrators, the same people lobbying for digital recording systems and outsourcing of court record duties.
• The figure conveniently ignores historic layoff patterns and mismanagement of hiring pipelines. LA courts laid off hundreds of court reporters over the past decade due to budget cuts—and are now crying shortage when it’s politically convenient.
• Lack of recruitment, not lack of reporters, is the root cause. Plenty of licensed professionals remain available but are not being offered fair wages or full-time court positions.

---

📊 Myth #2: “1,120 Court Reporters Retire Annually, But Only 200 Join”

Claim Source: This statistic often comes from the Ducker Report and vendors like Rev.com, a tech transcription company with clear business motives.

• The Ducker Report (2013), often cited in this discussion, is outdated, methodologically flawed, and funded in part by interests aligned with automation.
• The math is fuzzy: the actual licensing and certification rates fluctuate year to year, and many credentialed reporters work freelance or in other industries by choice—not because of lack of opportunity.
• Rev.com sells AI transcription services and directly benefits from the narrative that humans are in short supply. This is not neutral data—it’s marketing disguised as research.

---

🎓 Myth #3: “There Are Only 19 NCRA-Approved Programs Left”

Claim: The decline in court reporting schools proves that interest and accessibility have collapsed.

• First, NCRA approval is not the sole measure of a program’s quality or legitimacy. Many excellent schools (especially online programs) choose not to affiliate due to costs or independence.
• Second, the decline in schools is not a reflection of lack of student interest but of systemic underinvestment, particularly in public vocational training.
• Finally, many schools closed after state or court systems slashed budgets and stopped funding training incentives—which again points to policy choices, not a dying profession.

---

💸 The Real Agenda: Follow the Money

Let’s be clear: court reporters represent one of the last human-controlled safeguards in a legal system increasingly dominated by bureaucracy and cost-cutting.

So who benefits from the “shortage” narrative?

• Court administrators seeking cheaper, tech-based alternatives to human labor.
• Software vendors and AI companies marketing transcription platforms to governments.
• Private equity-backed court reporting firms eager to consolidate and automate.

This isn’t about solving a crisis—it’s about replacing skilled workers under the cover of a fabricated one.

---

⚖️ What’s Really at Risk: Access to Justice

The irony? Courts now tell the public that they can’t afford to hire enough court reporters, and that recordless hearings are acceptable. But litigants—especially self-represented or under-resourced individuals—are left without a verbatim record, denying them their right to appeal.

Meanwhile, private parties are forced to pay $3,000–$5,000 per day for freelance reporters to ensure a record is made. That’s not access to justice—that’s privatization of the public record.

---

🚨 Conclusion: Stop the Hype, Start the Accountability

The so-called shortage of court reporters is not a natural crisis—it’s a manufactured justification for a slow-motion dismantling of a critical legal profession. The numbers, when viewed in context, reveal administrative failure, funding cuts, and agenda-driven messaging, not an unsolvable demographic decline.

Before accepting the shortage narrative at face value, we must ask:

• Who is producing the data?
• Who profits from the “solution”?
• And who loses their voice in the courtroom when a machine replaces a trained, ethical professional?