Fixing Court Reporting Compensation – Why the FairSplit Proposal Deserves a Second Look

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

May 17, 2025

The “FairSplit” proposal was designed with a simple yet powerful idea in mind: to restore balance, transparency, and sustainability to a court reporting industry under increasing pressure from venture capital consolidation, automation, and opaque billing structures. The reactions to the original article ranged from enthusiastic support to skeptical pushback. That’s not only understandable — it’s necessary. Dialogue is the first step to meaningful reform.

In this follow-up, we’ll resummarize the intent behind FairSplit, thoughtfully address the most common concerns raised, and reaffirm why now is the time for working reporters to take a more active role in reshaping the economics of our profession.

What Is FairSplit? A Quick Recap

The FairSplit proposal advocates for a transparent, percentage-based revenue-sharing model between reporting agencies and the independent contractors who perform the actual work — the court reporters. Rather than a fixed “page rate” or “rack rate” system that hides client billing, FairSplit would calculate a fair, predetermined split (say, 60/40 or 70/30) of all billables for a given job. That includes transcripts, roughs, realtime feeds, and yes — per diem charges.

The idea is not to eliminate agency value. It’s to ensure equitable sharing based on actual revenue earned, while maintaining trust and transparency for both sides of the contractor-client relationship.

Let’s Talk About the Pushback

We received a number of thoughtful objections, and they deserve full consideration. Let’s break them down:

1. “We’re independent contractors. What agencies bill isn’t our business.”

That’s true — to a point. As independent contractors, we do have the right (and responsibility) to set our own rates. But let’s be honest: in today’s agency-dominated environment, we rarely get that luxury. We’re often told what we’ll be paid — not asked.

And more importantly, independence works both ways. If an agency expects contractors to shoulder the cost of equipment, training, certification, and personal liability, then that agency owes it to those professionals to offer transparency in how shared revenue is distributed.

Would you hand over a finished transcript to a client without knowing what you were being paid for it? No? Then why do we accept it from agencies?

Transparency is not about nosiness. It’s about fairness and informed decision-making. Knowing what a client was billed allows us to assess whether the compensation aligns with the value we bring to the table.

2. “I don’t show my proofreader what I bill my clients — why should agencies?”

This is a reasonable comparison — but it misses a key distinction.

You’re paying your proofreader from the revenue you earned. You’re the client in that scenario, not a middleman. Agencies, by contrast, are coordinating a transaction between two parties — the client and the reporter. In a brokered model, the compensation should be transparent to both sides of the deal.

Would you accept a real estate agent who refuses to tell you the home’s selling price while charging you a “standard fee” based on mystery math? Of course not.

FairSplit doesn’t demand agencies show every line item of their internal finances. It simply requires that the actual billed revenue for a job be disclosed to the person who performed the core work, so a pre-agreed revenue share can be fairly applied.

3. “Per diems shouldn’t go 100% to the reporter — the agency booked the job.”

Agencies add value, and that should be compensated. No argument there.

But let’s examine what a per diem represents: it’s a flat daily rate to compensate a reporter for showing up, often covering costs like transportation, meals, and time spent waiting around. It’s not a fee for transcription or scheduling — it’s for being there.

If the reporter is the one traveling, giving up their day, and often dealing with long hours or unexpected delays, it only makes sense that the per diem — like mileage, parking, and lodging — goes to the person absorbing those costs.

That said, FairSplit doesn’t propose 100% of all revenue streams go to the reporter. It proposes a fair percentage split of all billables — per diem included. If the agency is billing it, it should be split in line with the agreed ratio. That’s consistent, clean, and fair.

4. “Full transparency isn’t going to happen. VC-owned agencies won’t go for it.”

You’re absolutely right — they won’t. And that’s exactly the point.

FairSplit is not a plan to persuade every megafirm to play nice. It’s a framework for independent agencies, boutique firms, and forward-thinking reporters who want to build something better.

The major corporate players have already shown their priorities: automation, cost-cutting, and shareholder returns. They are replacing skilled professionals with audio recorders and AI transcription engines because it’s cheaper — not better. The only way to fight back is to build a more sustainable alternative.

FairSplit is that alternative.

A Call to the Real Professionals

If you’re a veteran reporter, you’ve likely watched your margins shrink, your responsibilities grow, and your control over your own work diminish. Agencies that used to be partners now feel like overlords. New reporters enter an industry where rates are secretive, expectations are vague, and burnout is inevitable.

But here’s the truth: you don’t have to play their game.

FairSplit empowers reporters and ethical agencies to do business differently:

  • Transparent, predictable revenue splits
  • Equitable sharing of value-added services
  • Respect for the skill, time, and financial investment reporters bring

This model works best when both sides respect what the other brings to the table. Agencies deserve compensation for scheduling, marketing, client acquisition, billing, and coordination. Reporters deserve fair pay for the labor-intensive work of capturing and producing the record.

What You Can Do Next

  1. Reporters:
    • Start conversations with agencies about adopting FairSplit.
    • Prioritize working with firms that offer transparency and respect.
    • Consider teaming up with fellow reporters to form your own boutique firms.
  2. Agencies:
    • Be bold. FairSplit is a market differentiator in a field where top talent is leaving.
    • Use transparency as a selling point to attract elite professionals.
    • Improve retention, morale, and quality — all while still earning your share.
  3. Clients:
    • Demand excellence, but also fairness. Ethical treatment of court reporters ensures better service, better records, and a better experience.

Conclusion: The Future Is Ours to Shape

If we accept the current model as unchangeable, we’re signing off on our own obsolescence. But if we challenge the assumptions, build partnerships based on fairness, and demand transparency where it matters most — we have a shot at a more sustainable and ethical profession.

FairSplit isn’t about tearing down agencies. It’s about realigning incentives so everyone can thrive — especially the professionals who keep the record.

The status quo isn’t sacred. It’s just familiar. Let’s build something better.

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