Ethical Red Flags – Are Attorneys Violating Rules of Professional Conduct by Retaliating Against Court Reporters?

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

By Steno Imperium

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged in the legal industry: plaintiff attorneys—especially those self-funding litigation—are increasingly turning to digital reporting, automatic speech recognition (ASR), and electronic recording (ER) as cheaper alternatives to certified shorthand reporters. The reasons given often boil down to cost and convenience. But beneath the surface, there’s a deeper, more insidious motivation at play: retaliation.

Many attorneys, particularly in California, are still holding a grudge over the “Stop the SoCal Stip” movement. That movement, led by court reporters, sought to end the decades-long practice of stipulating away the legal requirement that the original transcript be maintained by the certified court reporter. While the intention was to preserve the integrity of the legal record, many attorneys viewed it as obstructionist and self-serving. Instead of understanding the ethical and legal reasoning behind the campaign, they felt slighted—and some are now retaliating by cutting court reporters out entirely.

But here’s the ethical question: When attorneys deliberately use uncertified, potentially inaccurate transcripts, or circumvent certified professionals to gain a financial advantage or express resentment, are they violating the Rules of Professional Conduct?

The answer may be yes.

The Duty of Competence and Fairness

Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which serve as the foundation for most state bar rules, attorneys are held to the following standards:

  • Rule 1.1 – Competence: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.
  • Rule 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal: A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.
  • Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel: A lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence.
  • Rule 8.4 – Misconduct: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

When an attorney knowingly uses an uncertified transcript created by a non-licensed person—or worse, generated offshore and rubber-stamped by a notary—they are jeopardizing the accuracy and integrity of the record. That puts their own client at risk, may mislead the court, and undermines the very due process the justice system depends on.

This is not just a billing issue. It’s an ethical one.

Knowingly Using Inaccurate or Uncertified Transcripts

In jurisdictions like California, the law is clear: transcripts must be certified by a licensed Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR). Government Code § 69941 and Business & Professions Code § 8025 require that any official transcript used in court must be produced by a licensed CSR.

Despite this, big-box agencies are now offering transcripts produced by digital recorders or overseas typists, which are then signed by in-house notaries—not CSRs. Attorneys are using these transcripts in court proceedings, depositions, and settlements, often without disclosing their uncertified origin.

If an attorney knows (or should know) that the transcript was not prepared by a licensed professional and uses it anyway to save money or “teach court reporters a lesson,” that could be considered gross negligence, lack of competence, or even fraud on the court.

Misleading the Court and Clients

Many attorneys are not fully disclosing to their clients or the court that the transcript in use was not certified. They assume that because a transcript appears in standard format and contains a notary signature, it is valid.

This assumption is dangerous. And willful ignorance is not a defense.

  • If the transcript contains errors that are not caught, it could alter the outcome of a case.
  • If a judge relies on an uncertified transcript, the ruling could be subject to appeal or reversal.
  • If clients later discover that their attorney used an uncertified record in a high-stakes case, they may have grounds for a malpractice claim.

Using uncertified or error-prone transcripts for the sake of cost-cutting or retaliation is the antithesis of the duty of candor and competent representation.

Retaliation and Ethical Gray Zones

Retaliation is rarely overt. But when attorneys deliberately choose to avoid hiring certified reporters because of a political or emotional grievance, rather than making decisions in their client’s best interest, they are operating in an ethical gray zone.

Consider the facts:

  • Attorneys are bypassing court reporters after the SoCal Stip movement, not because of performance issues, but because they were told “no.”
  • They are aware that certified reporters are the gold standard but intentionally seek out inferior alternatives.
  • They know or suspect that these alternatives are less accurate, but proceed anyway.

This behavior may violate the spirit of Rule 8.4, which prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. In extreme cases, it could even constitute malicious interference with a professional’s livelihood.

While there is no statute that says, “An attorney may not retaliate against a court reporter,” the totality of the behavior—if it results in harm to clients, misleading of the court, or undermining the legal record—could absolutely trigger disciplinary scrutiny.

What Can Be Done?

1. Educate Attorneys on the Risks
Many attorneys are simply unaware of the legal and ethical risks they take by using uncertified transcripts. We must start speaking up and providing CLEs, bar presentations, and educational handouts that spell out what they are risking—not just for themselves, but for their clients.

2. Document Violations
If a transcript is uncertified, was prepared by a non-CSR, or appears altered or incomplete, document it. Keep records. If a judge or court has unknowingly accepted such a record, bring it to their attention.

3. File Bar Complaints When Appropriate
In flagrant cases of attorney misconduct involving misrepresentation of transcripts or intentional use of false or misleading records, a complaint can and should be filed with the state bar.

4. Demand Transparency from Agencies
Hold agencies accountable for disclosing who produced the transcript, where it was produced, and who certified it. Push for invoice transparency and clear designations when a transcript is not CSR-certified.

Final Thoughts

We are in the middle of an industry war—and ethics is one of the most powerful weapons we have. Attorneys are bound by strict rules, and when they knowingly violate them in pursuit of cost savings or retaliation, they open themselves to real legal and reputational consequences.

The next time a transcript is produced without a CSR certifying it, ask: Does the client know? Does the judge know? Do you, as counsel, understand what you’re putting on the record?

Retaliation is emotional. But ethics are structural. We must start holding people accountable to them before the entire legal record collapses into unreliability and chaos.

Certified court reporters are not just a tradition—we are a safeguard of justice. And the Rules of Professional Conduct are on our side.

Steno Imperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

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):

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