The Scopist Crisis – A Silent Threat to the Integrity of Court Reporting

In the world of stenographic court reporting, where accuracy and efficiency are paramount, one of the most underdiscussed yet increasingly destructive challenges is the growing difficulty in finding competent, trained, and reliable scopists. As stenographers continue to be overburdened with heavy workloads, fast-paced turnaround demands, and the need for real-time precision, the role of the scopist should be one of support and professional collaboration. Unfortunately, in recent years, it has instead become a source of deep frustration, costly mistakes, and growing mistrust.

This is not just a small, isolated problem—it’s becoming a crisis that undermines the integrity of our work, our deadlines, and ultimately, our profession.

Scopists Are Supposed to Be Our Safety Net

Court reporters often rely on scopists to catch errors, smooth out awkward phrasing, correct untranslates, and elevate a rough draft into a certified, professional transcript. In theory, the scopist should be the skilled second set of eyes—a professional who understands not only grammar and punctuation, but also the nuances of legal terminology, transcript formatting, and the reporter’s unique software and personal preferences.

But increasingly, that ideal isn’t matching reality.

Many reporters, including myself, have noticed a growing disconnect between what we expect from a scopist and what we actually receive. I’m on StenoCat32, and it has become painfully obvious that a surprising number of scopists who apply for work are not proficient with the software, fail to grasp even the most basic comma rules, and return transcripts riddled with errors—sometimes worse than if they had never touched them at all. Worse yet, they often miss obvious mistranslates, don’t run spellcheck, and fail to follow any reasonable style or format guide.

A Flood of Unqualified Applicants

I receive emails almost daily from individuals claiming to be experienced legal transcriptionists, often with resumes that tout years of experience but little to no court reporting background. The messages are often polite and professional in tone, with phrases like “attention to detail” and “strong understanding of legal terminology.” Yet when tested or assigned a trial job, these same candidates often return work that shows a complete lack of real-world skill.

Many of these inquiries are also from overseas applicants—some of whom are applying from countries with no direct exposure to U.S. legal proceedings, transcript formatting rules, or even proper American punctuation norms. It’s not unusual to see transcripts come back with British-style punctuation, improper spacing, or confusion over basic U.S. legal terms. While outsourcing has a place in many industries, it does not belong in the realm of certified court reporting without strict oversight and hands-on training. Our legal system depends on accurate, timely, and jurisdiction-specific transcripts.

The Risks Are Too High

Imagine this: A court reporter turns in their rough draft to be scoped overnight. The scopist doesn’t recognize a misstroke and lets “hearsay” stand as “hearse A.” The scopist also deletes paragraphing without explanation, introduces punctuation errors, and fails to fix “statue” where “statute” was clearly intended. The court reporter, relying on their scopist, certifies the transcript without catching all these mistakes.

Now that transcript is entered into the record—full of errors, legal misunderstandings, and formatting missteps. The court reporter is liable. The attorney is disadvantaged. The judge may lose faith in the reporter. And the profession takes yet another hit to its credibility.

We’re living in a time when ASR (automatic speech recognition) is knocking on the courtroom door, digital recording companies are promising faster and cheaper “solutions,” and the court reporting profession is under constant scrutiny. We cannot afford to allow incompetence to flourish in our support systems.

Software Matters

One of the biggest problems is that many scopists aren’t proficient in the software the reporter uses. StenoCat32, for example, is a powerful CAT (computer-aided transcription) system that offers extensive customization, job dictionaries, global tables, and style settings. But someone unfamiliar with the platform can easily override important global entries, change format settings unintentionally, or leave behind dozens of untranslated steno strokes.

Reporters using other systems—like Case CATalyst or Eclipse—report similar issues. A scopist who doesn’t know the software is like a surgeon’s assistant who doesn’t know how to hand off instruments—it’s dangerous, inefficient, and leads to mistakes.

Training in specific software platforms should be a baseline requirement—not a bonus. Yet too many scopists either bluff their way into jobs or assume that generic transcription experience is transferable. It’s not.

The Scopist Shortage Within a Reporter Shortage

Court reporting already faces a national shortage of trained professionals, with some counties in states like Texas, California, and Florida experiencing chronic vacancies. And now we’re seeing the same trend trickle down to scopists. The experienced, veteran scopists who built their reputations working with top-tier reporters are retiring or leaving the field. What’s left is a shallow pool of freelancers—many of whom are not adequately trained, not software-literate, and not committed to the level of professionalism this job requires.

This isn’t about gatekeeping—it’s about maintaining standards in a profession that is literally built on the word “verbatim.”

What Needs to Change

1. Certification and Testing
   There should be a voluntary national scopist certification, at minimum, with software-specific modules and real-world scoping samples required. Reporters should be able to hire from a verified directory of trained scopists, the same way court reporters are vetted through state licensing boards.
2. Software Proficiency
   Scopists must be fluent in the CAT software they claim to work in. A 10-minute test scoped in the reporter’s software of choice should be mandatory before hiring.
3. Higher Pay for Quality
   Just as court reporters charge premium rates for realtime work or daily copy, there should be an industry-wide shift to pay top dollar for trained, responsive, skilled scopists. If scopists are treated like disposable vendors, we can’t be surprised when they don’t deliver excellence.
4. Collaboration and Communication
   Reporters and scopists should be working as partners—not strangers exchanging files in a vacuum. Better communication around preferences, job dictionaries, and expectations is key.
5. Domestic Priority
   While some overseas scopists may be excellent and capable of learning, there should be a prioritization of domestic professionals who understand U.S. legal culture and language. At the very least, these applicants should undergo additional vetting and legal terminology testing before being considered.

---

A Call for Professional Integrity

Court reporters are under more pressure than ever to deliver flawless work in record time. We cannot do that without reliable, trained, and intelligent support. Scopists are not optional—they are essential—but only when they are competent and conscientious.

If the scopist community wants to be seen as true professionals, they must be held to professional standards. Reporters must also raise their expectations, share feedback, and demand better—not just settle out of desperation.

It’s time to restore excellence to the team behind the transcript. Because our words matter—and every person who touches them must treat them with the same care, precision, and pride.

Disclaimer

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

• The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
• Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):