No, You Never Served Me – The Truth Behind False Cease-and-Desist Claims

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, SITCTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a recent Facebook post, Shaunise Day — founder of Steno-in-the-City ™— claimed that a cease and desist letter had been issued against me and “didn’t work,” adding that “the only way that it will work is if you sue her.” This comment was made in a thread full of public encouragement for others to take legal action against me for my journalism and whistleblowing within the court reporting profession.

Her exact words were:

“This lady is not going to stop. A cease and desist will not matter. We tried that. The only way that it will work is if you sue her. The attorney advised that it will be $450 per hour. INSANE!!!!
I wish there was a way the associations could play a part when it comes to cyberbullying and defamation.”

But here’s the truth:
No licensed attorney ever served me with a cease and desist on Shaunise Day’s behalf.
What was sent was not a lawful legal communication.
And what followed was a formal investigation — not into me — but into the person who unlawfully sent that letter.

Here are the facts.

📩 The Letter That Wasn’t Legal

In 2023, I received a cease and desist letter claiming to represent Shaunise Day’s legal interests. But it did not come from a licensed attorney. It was written and sent by Sharon Williams, who, at the time, was a J.D. — not an attorney, not authorized counsel, and not a member of any state bar.

The letter threatened legal consequences for statements I made about Shaunise’s public activities, business practices, and her involvement with court reporting associations.

Upon review, I recognized the letter for what it was: an improper attempt to intimidate a critic using legal language without the legal authority to do so.

⚖️ California State Bar – Unauthorized Practice of Law — Despite Holding a J.D.

In 2023, I received a cease and desist letter claiming to represent Shaunise Day’s legal interests. The letter was authored by Sharon Williams, a woman with a Juris Doctor (JD) — meaning she attended law school — but who was not licensed to practice law in California.

Holding a JD does not authorize someone to act as legal counsel. Sharon Williams was not admitted to the California State Bar, and therefore was not legally permitted to issue legal threats, act as legal representation, or present herself as an attorney.

The matter was reported to the California State Bar, which opened an investigation and confirmed that Sharon Williams had violated state laws prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).

Specifically:

The case was then referred to the California Department of Justice for potential prosecution.

The State Bar found that Williams violated Business and Professions Code §§ 6125–6126, which prohibit the unlicensed practice of law.

As a result, the Bar issued a cease and desist order to Ms. Williams, demanding she stop representing others in legal matters.

🖋️ She Had a JD — But No License, No Authority, and No Standing

It’s important to stress: Sharon Williams may have had legal education. But she was not an attorney — and under California law, that distinction matters greatly. Only a licensed member of the California State Bar can practice law, represent clients, or issue enforceable cease and desist letters.

Therefore, the cease and desist she issued was legally meaningless — and arguably unlawful.

☠️ A Sad and Sudden Ending

Before any criminal proceedings could take place, Sharon Williams tragically passed away in her sleep shortly after the State Bar issued its ruling in November of 2024. While I was deeply disturbed by her actions, I acknowledge that her death was a human loss. I’ve never used her passing for spectacle, nor would I. But the truth must be told.

It is unacceptable — and frankly cruel — for Shaunise to continue referencing this unlawful cease and desist as if it were a valid legal action that “didn’t work.”

It wasn’t valid. And it didn’t fail — it was never enforceable to begin with.

🧨 Why Shaunise’s Post Matters — and Why It’s Dangerous

In her recent post, Shaunise:

  1. Falsely claims a cease and desist was properly issued.
  2. Publicly encourages others to sue me, referencing a $450/hour attorney.
  3. Suggests that associations should “play a part” in dealing with people like me — implying some organized retaliation through professional bodies.

This is not just misleading. It’s dangerous.

  • False legal claims are a form of defamation in themselves.
  • Calling for group retaliation against someone engaged in journalism or advocacy walks a fine legal line toward civil conspiracy and tortious interference.
  • And framing someone as a “cyberbully” simply for exposing public wrongdoing is not protected criticism — it’s reputation damage through innuendo and falsehood.

📢 Let’s Be Clear About What I Do

I write about court reporting, court corruption, transparency, professional ethics, and the dangerous privatization of justice. I report on questionable partnerships between associations and for-profit entities. I use public records, screenshots, and documented statements. I call attention to behavior that undermines the integrity of our profession.

That’s not harassment.
That’s journalism.
That’s protected speech.
That’s whistleblowing.

And it’s desperately needed in this industry.

📚 The Real Legal Lesson Here

SD’s claims that “we tried that” — referring to a cease and desist. But “we” never did. What actually happened is this:

  • An illegal letter was sent.
  • The State Bar investigated.
  • The State Bar confirmed the letter was unlawful.
  • The Bar issued its own cease and desist — not to me — but to the person who tried to pose as an attorney.

And that is the only cease and desist letter in this situation that carried any legal weight.

🛡️ Final Thoughts: I Don’t Want a Fight. I Want the Truth.

I’m not trying to win a popularity contest. I’m not trying to destroy anyone’s career. I’m trying to stop people from misleading associations, exploiting volunteers, misusing nonprofit optics for personal gain, and silencing critics through intimidation.

But when someone lies publicly about sending me a cease and desist — and uses that lie to encourage legal retaliation — I have to respond.

Because facts matter.
Because our profession matters.
And because truth deserves louder voices than threats.

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):

“The organization known as Steno In The City (a registered trademark) has, to date, made no public statement regarding these concerns.”

“Steno In The City is a registered trademark of its respective owner. This blog is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Steno In The City.”

“My use of the phrase ‘Steno In The City’ is purely descriptive and used solely to refer to the trademark holder in the context of journalistic critique and commentary. No content on the site implies affiliation, endorsement, or partnership with the trademark holder.”

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