The Knox County Privacy Breach – A Wake-Up Call on Confidentiality and Professional Duty

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal Services, Steno StudentsTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In August 2025, Knox County, Nebraska, found itself at the center of a scandal that underscores one of the most important pillars of public trust in the legal system: confidentiality. The county attorney, a chief deputy, and a 911 coordinator faced suspension or dismissal after an independent investigation revealed that courthouse microphones had been recording and transmitting conversations—conversations that should have been strictly private.

While this may sound like a small-town problem, the lessons stretch far beyond Nebraska. From attorneys and judges to court reporters and administrative staff, every professional in the justice system carries a shared duty to safeguard confidential information. When that trust is compromised, the entire legal process is put at risk.

What Happened in Knox County

In 2024, Knox County installed a new audio and video system at the courthouse. Unbeknownst to the Board of Supervisors, this upgrade included a second microphone in the supervisors’ meeting room. Unlike the original system, which had an obvious cutoff switch for private sessions, this second microphone had no way to be disabled.

That meant that during much of 2024, select courthouse employees had the ability to listen in on closed sessions of the board, emergency meetings, executive sessions, and even confidential discussions between department heads and staff.

The breach came to light in January 2025 when the county clerk noticed that information from a supposedly private meeting was somehow circulating among courthouse employees. Suspicion turned to the unusual device installed near a fire detector—eventually confirmed to be a live microphone.

The subsequent investigation revealed that Chief Deputy Dan Henery and 911 Coordinator Heather Kienow had listened in on private sessions. The sheriff, Don Henery (Dan’s brother), acknowledged that he knew of the microphone’s existence for more than a year.

The Board of Supervisors reacted decisively. County Attorney Hanna Knox Jensen, who had overseen courthouse security at the time of the installation, was suspended without pay for one year. Chief Deputy Henery and Coordinator Kienow were terminated. Although the investigation found no evidence of personal or financial gain from the misuse of audio recordings, the damage was done: the public’s trust had been shaken, and the careers of three individuals were upended.

Why This Matters Beyond Knox County

At its core, the Knox County case is about more than just poor oversight of technology. It highlights three interlocking truths about the legal system today:

  1. Technology amplifies risk. New tools can enhance efficiency, but without careful oversight, they introduce vulnerabilities. A single overlooked microphone turned routine meetings into a privacy nightmare.
  2. Confidentiality is non-negotiable. Legal professionals handle information that can alter lives—whether it’s sensitive testimony, settlement discussions, or personnel matters. Breaches, even unintentional, erode the credibility of the institutions tasked with justice.
  3. Accountability must be proactive, not reactive. By the time the board discovered the microphone, trust had already been compromised. Oversight must begin at the installation stage, not after damage is revealed.

The Court Reporter’s Parallel

For certified court reporters and freelance stenographers, this case rings with particular resonance. Reporters are entrusted with the official record of proceedings. Attorneys, judges, and litigants rely on the assumption that a reporter’s transcript is complete, accurate, and confidential.

Yet, as one industry observer noted in response to the Knox County case, many “big box” court reporting firms have begun shifting the burden of confidentiality squarely onto individual reporters. Employment contracts sometimes require reporters to sign clauses making them personally liable for any breach—regardless of whether the breach was caused by faulty technology, negligent proofreaders, or corporate mishandling of files.

If Knox County teaches us anything, it’s this: professionals must be cautious about what they sign, vigilant about who handles their files, and uncompromising when it comes to the security of sensitive information.

Lessons for Attorneys and Judges

The suspension of County Attorney Hanna Knox Jensen is a sharp reminder that lawyers themselves are not immune from scrutiny when confidentiality is breached. For attorneys, the duty of competence under the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes understanding the technology used in their practice. ABA Formal Opinion 477R explicitly requires lawyers to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent unauthorized access to confidential communications.

Judges, too, carry this responsibility. The Code of Judicial Conduct emphasizes integrity, impartiality, and the preservation of confidentiality. A courtroom where private sidebar conversations can be overheard through poorly managed microphones is a courtroom that risks both fairness and public confidence.

Technology and the Illusion of Security

One of the more troubling aspects of the Knox County breach was the apparent cancellation of a cutoff switch by an “unknown person from the courthouse.” In other words, a safeguard was planned but deliberately removed.

This speaks to a broader problem in the legal profession: overreliance on technology without adequate checks. Installing a microphone is easy. Ensuring it cannot be abused requires foresight, policies, and continuous oversight. Too often, institutions mistake the presence of new technology for genuine security.

This is equally true in the debate over digital court reporting and AI-based transcription. Proponents argue that automated systems are cheaper and faster. But what happens when sensitive testimony is stored on a cloud server vulnerable to hacking? Or when a microphone, meant for efficiency, records a closed meeting without consent?

Without human oversight, technology becomes not a safeguard but a liability.

Rebuilding Trust After Breach

Once a breach occurs, restoring confidence is far more difficult than preventing the breach in the first place. Knox County’s decision to suspend and terminate personnel sent a clear signal of accountability, but for the citizens, questions remain:

  • How many confidential conversations were overheard?
  • Were sensitive strategies or employee discussions compromised?
  • Can county officials be trusted to safeguard future meetings?

Trust is fragile. To rebuild it, institutions must commit to transparency, adopt clear technological protocols, and ensure that those in positions of power are held accountable when they fail to protect confidentiality.

A Call to Vigilance for All Legal Professionals

The Knox County breach is not an isolated anomaly—it is a cautionary tale. Every professional who touches the justice system, from clerks and deputies to attorneys and reporters, must internalize these lessons:

  • Audit your technology. Know what devices are in your courtroom, meeting room, or office. Ask questions. Insist on safeguards.
  • Protect your records. Whether it’s a transcript, an email, or a recording, handle it as if it were the most sensitive document you will ever see.
  • Be careful who you trust. When outsourcing proofreading, tech support, or transcription, remember that confidentiality does not disappear when the file leaves your desk.
  • Refuse unreasonable liability. If asked to sign employment contracts that offload corporate responsibility onto you, think twice.

Conclusion

The Knox County case is a stark reminder that confidentiality is not a side note to the justice system—it is the foundation. Technology will continue to evolve, but without vigilance, it can erode the very trust it is supposed to support.

For attorneys, court reporters, judges, and public officials alike, the lesson is simple but urgent: protect the record, guard the privacy, and remember that once trust is lost, it may never be fully restored.

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):

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.