In the staffing world, there’s one truth that never changes: replacing a good worker costs more than retaining one. I learned this the hard way after hiring and firing over 800 people as a staffing supervisor and executive recruiter. But nowhere is this more evident—or more ignored—than in the court reporting industry.
Court reporting agencies today are trapped in a never-ending cycle of recruiting and onboarding. They’re scrambling to cover assignments while facing a dwindling supply of certified, working stenographers. The panic to fill jobs quickly often outweighs careful vetting, mentorship, or long-term planning. It’s a revolving door approach—one that’s bleeding the profession dry and putting justice itself at risk.
The truth? We don’t have a clear picture of how many court reporters are actually working. Sure, thousands hold licenses—but many are retired, inactive, or sidelined for other reasons. Some remain licensed for prestige or backup income, even though they haven’t taken a job in years. Others, unfortunately, have been blacklisted by agencies due to political disagreements, personality clashes, or power struggles—cut off from work entirely despite being skilled and certified.
So, when an agency says, “We’ll just find someone else,” they might believe there’s a deep bench of available talent. But that bench is thinner than they realize.
And replacing a seasoned court reporter isn’t as simple as checking a license and a shorthand speed. Veteran reporters bring something much more valuable: the ability to protect the record under pressure. They know how to handle difficult witnesses, multiple speakers, mumbled testimony, tech glitches, and opposing counsel with an agenda. They manage proceedings with calm authority and produce clean, complete transcripts that stand up in court. These are skills that come not from training alone, but from years—often decades—of experience.
When that kind of reporter walks away, the loss is massive. Not just in output, but in stability.
Replacing them isn’t cheap. There’s the cost of recruiting and onboarding someone new. There’s the time spent training, coaching, and correcting. There’s the risk of mistakes—missed testimony, late transcripts, complaints from counsel. And then there’s the intangible loss: relationships with repeat clients, familiarity with local judges, trust built over time. None of that can be recreated overnight.
The industry also suffers when veteran reporters retire without passing the torch. The next generation needs mentorship, not just technical training. They need to sit out with experienced reporters, get real-time feedback, and learn how to navigate the nuances of legal proceedings that can’t be taught in a textbook. But when older reporters leave the profession burned out, frustrated, or disrespected, they rarely stick around to train their replacements.
That gap is growing. And agencies are pouring resources into trying to close it—often by shifting toward digital or AI solutions that don’t truly replace human judgment or protect the integrity of the record. These alternatives may seem cheaper on paper, but they come with their own hidden costs: appeals due to inaudible audio, mistrials from incomplete transcripts, and legal liability when things go wrong.
Retention should be the priority. But too often, reporters are treated as expendable. Agencies push for more work, faster turnaround, and lower rates—then act surprised when reporters walk away.
It’s not just a staffing issue. It’s a systemic failure.
If we want to preserve the court reporting profession, we have to stop thinking of reporters as interchangeable and start seeing them as the essential officers of the court that they are. That means paying them fairly, listening to their concerns, and investing in long-term solutions that honor both the past and the future of the profession.
Because the real cost of losing a good reporter isn’t just measured in dollars. It’s measured in lost trust, weakened records, delayed justice, and the slow erosion of the human element in our legal system.
And that’s a price we can’t afford to keep paying.
StenoImperium
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):
STENOIMPERIUM 
Sorry to inform you but reporters are dictating to agencies what they want to be paid. Reporters are picking and choosing which agency they will cover jobs Some Reporters refuse to get continuing education or upgrade their equipment. Some reporters don’t invest time to learn to use the benefits of their CAT software. Some reporters do not write verbatim and they drop words and drop false starts which is appalling. Do they not know the definition of “verbatim”. Attorneys expect reporters to get every word spoken even if it is conversation from others in the room while on the record.
I don’t understand why reporters are charging extra fees if they report a videotaped Depo. Does that mean they don’t get written down every word spoken? Then they have to listen to audio files and that takes them off work for days to recreate the transcript thus causing a shortage of reporters to cover calendar. If they would hire trained scopists to finish their transcripts editing, that will free up reporters to cover jobs. Do they not know they make twice as much money than a scopist depending on the scopist reporter relationship.
If reporters have an interpreted Depo they charge a premium fee also. I do not understand why because they are getting per diem pay. Some reporters charge hourly extra pay if interpreter is present.
Please don’t blame the agency for the problems you mentioned above. The reporters need to step up and be the best verbatim reporters. If they write and pay attention during the Depo, their job will be practically finished when the Depo is over
I find many reporters don’t take timely breaks. That is not healthy for them. Breaks help you relax and refresh yourself for the next hour.
I can go on and on. But this hits some key points. I am a csr agency owner and have never considered using digital recordings or AI. I don’t even give attorneys AI summaries for all the reasons you alluded to in one of your blogs. I say attorneys can run their own AI summary. They don’t need the court reporter to do it. Want to bet they will be suing reporter and agency if the court throws out their case for a flawed summary.
Be smart out there and work smarter not harder
Sincerely,
Jonnell Agnew, CSR #5437
304 W Sierra Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre, CA 91024
LikeLike
Hi Jonnell,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts—and for continuing to stand up for this profession by refusing to adopt AI or digital recording in your agency. That alone speaks to your integrity and deep understanding of what’s at stake.
That said, I want to respectfully offer some clarifications from my perspective as a working California CSR with over 21 years of experience.
Let’s start with CEUs and certifications:
California does not require continuing education or NCRA membership to work as a court reporter. Many top reporters in this state have either let their certifications lapse or opted out entirely—not because they don’t care, but because the cost-to-benefit ratio simply doesn’t pencil out. NCRA conventions are expensive, and the course content often doesn’t reflect the real challenges reporters face in the field. For many, it’s not a sound business decision, especially when those credentials aren’t required to work or earn.
As for fees charged on interpreted and videotaped depositions:
These are not luxury add-ons. Interpreted proceedings typically yield fewer pages due to slower pacing and repetition, which means significantly lower income for the reporter—even though the job takes the same amount of time, or longer. The additional fee helps offset that disparity. Similarly, videotaped depos increase mental workload and visibility, often requiring post-job audio review and cleanup that takes reporters off the calendar for hours or even days. These fees are about parity, not profit.
On transcript quality and editing support:
I absolutely agree that verbatim accuracy is critical. But let’s also acknowledge that vetting and mentoring matter. When agencies rush to fill jobs due to the shortage, some less experienced reporters are thrust into high-pressure proceedings without the guidance they need. That’s a system-level issue, not just a reporter-level one.
And yes—many of us use scopists. I personally work with four. Even so, they are overwhelmed. Why? Because many scopists have shifted to working on ASR transcripts or digital audio produced by non-steno methods—where they can often earn more with less pressure. That has created a new bottleneck: court reporters who want to use scopists can’t always find ones available. It’s an unintended consequence of the industry chasing automation over quality. The scoping community is stretched thin, just like we are.
Breaks? Couldn’t agree more. No one benefits from a burnt-out reporter trying to push through six hours without pause. Breaks improve stamina, focus, and transcript accuracy. That’s something both agencies and attorneys can normalize and encourage.
When Court Reporters Are Treated as Disposable
Lately, I’ve noticed a growing—and deeply troubling—trend:
Attorneys and even judges are working through lunch, skipping breaks, and pushing proceedings late into the evening. No recess. No pause. No consideration for the human being making the official record.
If I ask for a break, I risk being replaced.
If I say, “I can’t keep up,” I risk being blacklisted.
If I speak up for my health or the integrity of the transcript, I risk losing the job entirely.
Let’s be clear: this is not sustainable.
Court reporters are not robots. We are trained professionals tasked with a critical duty—preserving an accurate, verbatim record under immense pressure. That takes focus, endurance, and stamina. But even the best among us have limits.
The law mandates lunch breaks and rest periods for most workers—but somehow, in the very courtroom where justice is supposed to be upheld, court reporters are expected to forgo basic human needs just to avoid being replaced.
Let’s talk about the cost of that mindset:
Transcripts suffer. Accuracy drops when fatigue sets in.
Burnout rises. Reporters leave the profession, worsening the shortage.
Errors happen. Records are challenged. Appeals are filed. Cases are jeopardized.
And all of it is avoidable—with reasonable breaks, mutual respect, and awareness that the integrity of the record depends on the well-being of the person creating it.
If we want to preserve due process and maintain a high standard of record-keeping, we must stop treating court reporters as disposable. That means honoring breaks, respecting working hours, and understanding that pushing people past their limit doesn’t save time—it compromises justice.
I love this profession. I want to stay in it.
But we need systemic change—not just for me, but for every working reporter trying to do the right thing without being punished for it.
At the end of the day, we all want the same thing: timely, accurate transcripts and a thriving profession. But to get there, we need partnership—not blame. Reporters need fair rates and working conditions. Agencies need transparency and reliability. And we all need to invest in the next generation before the pipeline runs dry.
I appreciate your candor and your continued advocacy for real reporters doing real work.
Warmly,
StenoImperium
LikeLike