California Court Reporters Are Being Squeezed Out – So How Do We Fix This?

In California, court reporters have long been the gold standard of litigation support. Armed with years of training, specialized certification, and a deep understanding of our state’s stringent formatting and transcript requirements, California Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) provide a critical service to the justice system. But lately, many of us who live and work in this state are finding it harder than ever to maintain a sustainable career — not because we lack skill or work ethic, but because we’re being systematically edged out of remote opportunities in favor of out-of-state reporters.

The issue isn’t just a logistical one. It cuts deep into questions of legality, professional ethics, and the long-term survival of California’s court reporting workforce.

---

The Disconnect – Why Are Out-of-State Reporters Handling California Work?

Despite clear rules and regulations set by the California Court Reporters Board (CRB), transcripts from California jobs are increasingly being prepared by reporters living elsewhere — including realtime work and jobs under state jurisdiction. The reasons for this are varied: lower overhead for agencies, greater remote availability from out-of-state reporters, and a nationwide push to fill perceived shortages.

But in many cases, the result is transcripts that are non-compliant with California’s formatting requirements — including line spacing, margins, font, and index rules — which, under state law, is not just a technical error, but an ethical and potentially legal violation.

If you’re a California CSR, you know the formatting standards are non-negotiable. We’re tested on them. We’re accountable for them. And if we fail to meet them, we risk disciplinary action from the CRB. Yet the market is now flooded with transcripts that are clearly noncompliant — even from reporters who hold a California license.

How does that happen? In some cases, the reporters may be unaware their formatting is off, especially if they passed the written exams but never worked extensively in California. In others, large agencies may be reformatting transcripts after delivery, intentionally or unintentionally breaking the rules. Either way, the accountability is blurred — and that’s a big problem.

---

The In-Person Dilemma – Unsustainable Expectations for Local Reporters

As remote jobs are increasingly assigned to out-of-state reporters, California CSRs are being funneled into in-person work. On paper, that sounds fair — someone needs to be physically present, after all. But in practice, it’s not that simple.

Many of us are being asked to cover depos that require three-, four-, or even five-hour roundtrip commutes. Jobs we wouldn’t normally accept — due to distance, duration, or scheduling challenges — are suddenly the only ones on offer. Meanwhile, remote lists go out with dozens of jobs that we aren’t offered, even after explicitly asking to be considered.

The pressure to take in-person work isn’t just frustrating. For those of us juggling family responsibilities, health concerns, or simply trying to preserve a decent quality of life, it’s completely unsustainable. The result? Burnout. Disillusionment. And a creeping sense that we’re being punished for living in the very state we were licensed to serve.

---

Rates and Cost of Living Sets Up An Uneven Playing Field

One major elephant in the room is cost. Reporters living in California simply can’t compete with those based in states with significantly lower living expenses. Our housing, gas, insurance, and general overhead are drastically higher — yet agencies often offer flat rates for jobs, regardless of where the reporter lives.

This creates a downward pressure on rates, particularly for remote work. Out-of-state reporters are sometimes willing to accept California jobs at rates no local CSR could afford to work for. The long-term consequences of this practice are obvious: fewer working opportunities for in-state professionals, greater attrition, and a weakening of the very standards we worked so hard to establish.

---

Is Reporting the Solution? Accountability vs. Community

So, what can be done?

One possible route is to begin reporting noncompliant transcripts to the CRB. It’s a serious step, and it should never be taken lightly — but if the law is being broken, and the quality of our professional environment is suffering as a result, silence isn’t a solution. In many cases, the offending reporter may simply be unaware of the formatting rules, particularly if they’ve never worked regularly in California. A courteous heads-up to the agency or reporter could fix the issue without escalating it.

But when the violations persist, or when agencies knowingly use incorrectly formatted transcripts to cut costs, it becomes a systemic issue that the CRB must address.

Still, we need to balance accountability with empathy. Many out-of-state reporters are just trying to make a living, and it’s the agencies — not always the individual reporters — who are bending the rules. This isn’t about pitting steno against voice, or in-state against out-of-state. It’s about enforcing consistent standards across the board, so that no one is disadvantaged simply for doing things the right way.

---

A Call for Industry-Wide Reform

We need an honest, structured conversation among all stakeholders: reporters, agency owners, attorneys, and regulatory boards. The current approach — quietly shifting remote work to cheaper, out-of-state labor while forcing in-state CSRs into unreasonable in-person assignments — is short-sighted and self-destructive.

Agencies must ask themselves: Is this sustainable? Is it ethical? Is this how we treat the professionals who’ve upheld the industry for decades?

One potential solution is to establish clearer criteria for job assignment — balancing remote vs. in-person expectations among all reporters, and creating transparent policies for scheduling. For instance, local reporters might be offered remote work equally with out-of-state CSRs, and those who take predominantly remote work could commit to periodic in-person jobs, ensuring fairness.

Another approach is to push for stricter enforcement of CRB standards, including random transcript audits and clearer accountability for agencies that alter formatting post-production.

And most importantly, the licensing pipeline needs review. If reciprocity is being granted to reporters without requiring the full California skills test, we risk diluting the value of the CSR credential. California’s standards exist for a reason — to protect the integrity of the transcript and ensure the highest quality of legal recordkeeping. If they’re not upheld equally, what’s the point?

---

Don’t Leave California Behind

It’s heartbreaking to hear from skilled, dedicated California CSRs who are thinking of relocating just to stay afloat. We should be building a future where California court reporters can thrive here — not be forced to choose between their home and their profession.

Remote work should be an opportunity for inclusion, flexibility, and efficiency — not a tool to undercut local professionals. If we want to preserve this career in California, we must build a system that values our credentials, compensates us fairly, and respects the realities of modern work.

Because if we don’t fix this soon, we won’t just lose jobs. We’ll lose a generation of reporters who love their work but can no longer afford to do it in the state they call home.