The Case for Court Reporter Cost Transparency and Industry Reform

For decades, court reporters have been the silent guardians of the record, producing precise, certified transcripts that serve as the cornerstone of justice. Yet the profession now faces not only existential threats from automation and artificial intelligence, but also growing hostility from its most crucial stakeholders: attorneys and the courts themselves. At the root of this conflict is a growing resentment over the rising costs of court reporting services—costs that attorneys believe are inflated, excessive, and unfair. But few understand the truth behind those numbers: that the people doing the actual work, certified court reporters, are rarely the ones benefitting from these bloated invoices.

This article makes the case for legislative reform to correct that imbalance, reestablish fairness in cost structures, and preserve the integrity of our justice system.

---

I. The Growing Backlash from Attorneys

In recent years, plaintiff attorneys in particular have expressed outrage over court reporting costs, especially in California. Many are self-funding litigation and say that deposition expenses are eating into their ability to pursue justice for clients. They are:

• Using automatic speech recognition (ASR) for realtime because it’s cheaper
• Stipulating to waive court reporters in civil trials
• Sharing and copying transcripts with no regard to copyright or contractual restrictions

The backlash intensified after certified reporters successfully fought to stop the Southern California stipulation, a move seen by some attorneys as an attempt to hold them hostage to a costly, outdated system.

For over 40 years, attorneys relied on a stipulation to “relieve the court reporter of her duty under the Code to maintain custody of the original transcript.” This allowed attorneys to share transcripts freely and avoid paying multiple copy fees. When the reporter community pushed back on this stipulation—known in the industry as “Stop the SoCal Stip”—and demanded adherence to the rules that protect transcript integrity, many attorneys felt blindsided and resentful. They viewed it not as a legal safeguard but as a financial squeeze.

But the reality is more complex.

Behind the scenes, many large, corporate-run ‘big box’ agencies are fully aware that their inflated price structures are the driving force behind attorneys seeking cheaper alternatives like ASR, digital reporting, and electronic recording. In fact, this shift is not accidental—it’s a market that these big box agencies have helped create and are now perpetuating.

Why? Because cutting out the certified court reporter means they no longer have to share 50% of their profits. Instead, they can recruit and train their own internal workforce, pay them $10/hour, and still charge clients the same or more—while delivering a product that is uncertified and lacks the integrity of a licensed professional record. It’s not about innovation; it’s about maximizing profit through elimination of skilled labor.

This distinction is important. Many smaller, independent, court reporter–owned agencies continue to operate with integrity, transparency, and respect for the licensed professionals who make the legal record possible. These agencies tend to pay fair per diems, involve reporters in transcript-related revenue, and prioritize the quality and certification of the record over cutting corners. The real threat comes from consolidated mega-firms prioritizing growth and profit over professionalism and truth.

---

II. The Real Cost Breakdown

Many attorneys believe that the $3,000 or $5,000 deposition or trial bill they receive is going straight into the pocket of the court reporter. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Most certified freelance reporters in California are paid less than 50% of the invoice total. Here’s a closer look at where the money actually goes:

• Per Diem Fees: Trials are often billed at $3,500 to $5,000 per day by agencies, yet the reporter might receive only $700 to $1,500.
• Transcript Add-Ons: Condensed transcripts, concordances, exhibit handling, and delivery charges are frequently itemized and billed to attorneys, but the reporter sees none of this income.
• Digital Access Fees: Some agencies charge for digital portals and online viewing, keeping 100% of those fees while the reporter receives nothing.

The agency, acting as a middleman, is profiting more than the professional performing the actual work. This lack of transparency is not only unfair—it is deceptive.

---

III. Origins of the Per Diem System

The per diem model emerged in California when civil courtrooms privatized official court reporters. Without a salary or benefits, freelancers were expected to cover their own health insurance, retirement, self-employment tax, and professional development costs. The per diem was meant to compensate for the lack of a W-2 paycheck.

Initially, agencies charged a flat administrative fee of $50 for a half day or $100 for a full day for trial in court. But over time, those agency fees ballooned, outpacing inflation, professionalism, and fairness. Now some agencies charge up to $3,000 just to schedule a reporter for one day.

---

IV. Proposals for Reform

The solution is not to dismantle the profession or accept the flawed premise that ASR can replace human expertise. Instead, we need structural and legislative reform. Below is a proposed framework:

1. Agency Price Transparency Requirement

Like hospitals and insurance companies, court reporting agencies should be required to disclose:

• The court reporter’s invoiced per diem
• The agency’s service markup or fee
• Any separate charges for transcripts, exhibits, portals, or other services

Each invoice should include a “Court Reporter Compensation Disclosure” so attorneys can see exactly where their money is going.

Modeled After: Hospital Price Transparency Rule (CMS-1717-F2), requiring hospitals to disclose standard charges for items and services.

2. Per Diem Profit Cap (10% Rule)

Agencies should be limited to charging no more than 10% of the court reporter’s invoiced per diem as an administrative fee. This mirrors best practices in other industries:

• Entertainment Industry: Talent agents representing actors or writers typically receive a capped 10% commission.
• Real Estate: Brokers may receive a percentage of the transaction, but they are legally required to disclose their compensation.
• Recruiting & Staffing Firms: Many are limited in markup percentage under contractual agreements, especially when sourcing W-2 contractors.

In each case, transparency and fairness are core tenets. The middlemen are compensated, but not at the expense of the professionals doing the work. There is no reason court reporting agencies—serving as glorified scheduling platforms in many cases—should be allowed to mark up services 100% to 200% or more.

3. Revenue Sharing Requirement for Add-Ons

If the agency is going to bill separately for:

• Condensed transcripts
• Word indexes
• Exhibit scanning and storage
• Digital delivery and online access

Then the reporter should receive a minimum of 50% of that income. This ensures the person who performed the work is compensated fairly, and it discourages agencies from unethically monetizing every element of the job without consent.

4. Fair Contractor Classification

The law should recognize that a certified court reporter operating as a 1099 independent contractor is absorbing costs normally borne by an employer, such as:

• Medical insurance
• SSI contributions
• Payroll taxes
• Continuing education and licensing

The per diem is not just a “rate for showing up”—it is the substitute for all the compensation and benefits of a salaried employee. Any reforms to classification should protect this model or incentivize salaried alternatives.

5. Attorney Education and Disclosure

All attorneys using freelance court reporters should be given a one-page notice explaining:

• What per diem covers
• How much the reporter is paid versus how much is billed
• That certain services (condensed, exhibits, digital access) are agency-billed add-ons, often without compensation to the reporter

This builds trust and allows attorneys to make more informed decisions—including the option to book certified reporters directly.

6. Waiver Disclosure Requirement

If attorneys stipulate to waive a certified court reporter in civil proceedings, the law should require them to:

• Sign a form acknowledging they are waiving the accuracy and certification of the record
• Accept legal responsibility for any errors or omissions in the ASR-generated transcript
• Disclose to clients that uncertified transcripts may compromise appeals, admissibility, and the official record

This protects consumers (litigants) and ensures transparency in decision-making.

---

V. Why This Matters

The unchecked rise in agency profits, combined with the use of uncertified ASR transcripts, is hollowing out a critical profession. Reporters are leaving the field, and students are discouraged from enrolling in schools due to the perceived instability and unfair treatment.

Attorneys are justifiably upset about costs. But we must help them understand that:

• Court reporters are not setting the prices
• Agencies are the ones inflating the costs
• The solution is not to eliminate reporters but to eliminate the markup

---

VI. Call to Action

To save the court reporting profession and restore trust in our justice system, we must demand legislative reform now. Here are the next steps:

• Draft model legislation: The Court Reporter Transparency and Equity Reform Act (CRTERA)
• Partner with bar associations, plaintiff advocacy groups, and labor rights organizations
• Educate lawmakers and court administrators on the problem
• Empower reporters to speak directly to attorneys with truth and data

It is time to demystify the court reporting industry and shine a light on who is profiting, who is laboring, and who is getting left behind.

Let us restore fairness, professionalism, and integrity to the record.