Why Court Reporters Don’t Owe Agencies Loyalty—And Why That’s Okay

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

“What’s with all the reporters who won’t go in person? I’m getting begged to try to rearrange my schedule by a friend who runs a local agency because she can’t find someone to go live. I don’t get it.”

That’s the post that sparked dozens of comments across a popular court reporting Facebook group—and a fire in my gut.

Some commenters responded with nostalgia for in-person work. Others expressed confusion at why today’s reporters seem reluctant to step out of their homes. Many sympathized with the agency owner who “just can’t find someone to go live.” That’s the part that bothered me most—not because it’s inaccurate, but because it reflects a deeper misunderstanding of the current business model of freelance court reporting in the post-COVID era.

Let’s get this straight: reporters don’t owe agencies anything. Not loyalty. Not favors. Not their bodies in a chair across town at a deposition with 16 pages. Nothing.

The Myth of Loyalty in a Business Transaction

Court reporting agencies are businesses. They exist to make money. They are not non-profits. They are not support groups. And most of all, they are not our employers.

Yet there’s a persistent myth in our industry that freelancers somehow owe loyalty to the agencies that send them work. That myth is leftover from a different time—when reporters were treated like staff, paid consistently, and respected as the backbone of the profession. But those days are long gone.

In today’s market, most reporters are independent contractors, operating their own businesses with their own clients, equipment, and workflows. We pay for our software, hardware, training, licensing, continuing education, scopists, proofreaders, office supplies, data backups, health insurance, and retirement. We are the CEO, the technician, the receptionist, the accounts receivable department, and the one chasing payment for late checks. Agencies, on the other hand, are taking half the revenue—or more—without assuming any of that risk or workload.

The idea that we should feel bad for agencies who “can’t find anyone” to cover in-person jobs reeks of entitlement.

Why the Shift to Remote Is Logical—Not Lazy

After COVID-19 forced the legal system to adopt remote technology, court reporters adapted faster than anyone. We learned Zoom, bridged connections, solved audio issues, organized digital exhibits, and built new home-based businesses.

Now, many of us refuse to go back—not out of laziness, but because remote work is smarter business.

Let’s break down why:

  • Remote jobs eliminate travel time and gas costs.
  • No-shows no longer waste half your day.
  • Work-life balance is finally attainable.
  • You can cover multiple time zones without leaving home.
  • You’re not driving two hours for 16 pages and a pat on the back.

And for those who moved out of state and kept their original license—why wouldn’t they continue to work remote in the state they’re licensed for? Especially when their new state either doesn’t have reciprocity, or imposes licensing hurdles, delays, and additional costs?

This is not “laziness.” This is the modern freelance model.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: In-Person Isn’t Sustainable

Let’s do the math. A deposition that goes for 16 pages at a statutory $3.99 per page (in court) nets $63.84. Subtract:

  • Two hours of roundtrip driving
  • Gas and mileage wear
  • The opportunity cost of other work
  • No appearance fee (unless in California)
  • No reimbursement for parking, printing, or meals

Now compare that to staying home and waiting for a Zoom job to go forward—or taking the day to catch up on transcripts, admin, or life. That’s not shirking responsibility. That’s good business judgment.

Even my favorite local bakery just went out of business because they couldn’t keep the doors open selling $2.50 macaroons if they didn’t move enough volume.

Court reporters are no different. We have overhead. And just like any other service provider, if we can’t cover our costs and generate enough profit to stay in business, we have to change the model. Remote allows us to do that.

Exploited and Underpaid: Agencies Have Not Earned Our Sympathy

Let’s talk about profit splits. It used to be 70/30 in favor of the reporter. Now, it’s often 50/50 or worse, despite the fact that:

  • Electronic transcripts have reduced agencies’ production costs
  • Reporters handle exhibits, digital delivery, and formatting on their own
  • Agencies are now selling summaries without sharing that revenue
  • Reporters are doing more for less

Agencies have negotiated away our page rates through exclusive contracting, created a race to the bottom with volume discounts, and undercut the independent contractor model while bearing none of the professional risk we shoulder daily. They’ve helped stagnate our compensation—most reporters today are earning the same page rates they were in the 1980s, despite massive inflation.

We should be earning $18 per page just to keep pace. Instead, we’re gaslit into thinking we should help agencies “just this once” because they’re in a bind.

How is it that agencies can demand loyalty, but have never offered it themselves?

The Post-COVID Reality

COVID wasn’t just a health crisis—it was a great workplace reset. For court reporters, it was the first time we collectively realized:

  • We can work independently
  • We don’t need to accept every job
  • We should demand minimums and fair rates
  • We won’t tolerate abuse anymore

And we aren’t alone. Across the country, professionals in every field—from teachers to nurses to tech workers—have drawn the line. Work must be fair. Compensation must match effort. And flexibility is now a standard, not a perk.

So No, We Don’t Owe You an In-Person Appearance

If an agency can’t cover a job live, that’s not a reflection on reporter ethics. That’s a reflection of market demand and agency supply.

If you can’t find coverage, maybe your pay isn’t high enough. Maybe your terms are too rigid. Maybe you’re assuming loyalty where none exists.

Reporters aren’t “saying no to live” out of spite. They’re saying yes to something better—better work/life balance, better earnings, better conditions.

And they’re no longer apologizing for that choice.

Final Thoughts

Agencies are businesses. Reporters are businesses. There is no employee-employer relationship here, and pretending there is only perpetuates a dynamic where one side sacrifices for the other.

This is a free market. And in that market, reporters have the right to build a model that serves their lives, their families, and their financial stability. If that means turning down low-paying in-person jobs, so be it.

You don’t get to guilt us into sacrificing our sustainability so you can keep yours.

It’s time to respect court reporters as the professionals they are—and to stop expecting them to play by 1990’s rules in a 2025 world.

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