Fair Compensation in the Age of Derivative Products – Why Reporters Must Create a New Rate Sheet

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The business of court reporting has always been about more than just putting words on paper. From realtime feeds to condensed transcripts, word indexes, concordances, and now AI-generated summaries, derivative products have become a major source of revenue for agencies. Yet too often, the people who make those products possible—the reporters themselves—are cut out of the compensation loop.

This imbalance is not just unfair. It is unsustainable. Reporters must take back control by creating new rate sheets that explicitly value derivative products and ensure they are paid fairly for the revenue their work generates.

A Brief History of Compensation

Traditionally, the court reporting industry operated on a 70/30 model: reporters received 70% of transcript revenue, while agencies retained 30% for administration, client management, and overhead. That split acknowledged the reporter’s central role in producing the record while still compensating the agency for its business functions.

Over the years, however, this balance eroded. Agencies, through consolidation and market power, shifted the split closer to 50/50, and in some cases worse. Reporters became treated less like professionals with ownership of their work and more like subcontractors feeding into a corporate pipeline.

The result? Agencies now bill attorneys premium rates for derivative products without sharing a dime of that revenue with reporters. Condensed transcripts, indexes, and concordances are packaged and sold as “value-added” services—yet the reporter who created the transcript in the first place sees no additional pay.

The Economics of Derivative Products

Consider the numbers. In California, agencies bill $3.99 per page for regular transcripts and $5.99 per page for expedited transcripts in court. Many agencies turn around and charge the same rate again for condensed versions and word indexes.

If reporters were still receiving their historic 70% share, that would mean:

  • $2.75/page for condensed or indexed regular products.
  • $4.20/page for condensed or indexed expedited products.

Instead, agencies are keeping 100% of that revenue. The reporter is excluded entirely, even though the condensed transcript or concordance is nothing more than a repackaging of the reporter’s work.

This is not innovation. It is unjust enrichment—profiting directly from another’s labor while denying them their fair share.

AI is The Newest Derivative Product

AI-generated deposition summaries are simply the latest and flashiest derivative product. Agencies market them as efficiency tools or “value-adds,” but in reality, they are built on the same model: squeeze more revenue out of transcripts while sidelining the reporter.

At a minimum, if agencies insist on offering AI summaries, reporters should demand:

  • $0.75 per page, or $75 per transcript (whichever is greater).
  • A clear disclaimer that the reporter’s certification does not extend to AI products.

This makes two points: first, that AI summaries are not free to agencies, and second, that the reporter is not liable for errors introduced by technology.

Why a New Rate Sheet Matters

Without a formal rate sheet, reporters are negotiating from weakness. Agencies will continue to dictate the terms, and reporters will be left with shrinking compensation. By setting a Reporter’s Rate Sheet for Derivative Products, reporters reclaim their role as independent contractors with defined rates for every service their work enables.

A good rate sheet accomplishes three things:

  1. Establishes Value. It shows attorneys and agencies that condensed, indexes, realtime, rough drafts, and AI outputs are not freebies—they have defined monetary worth.
  2. Builds Consistency. With a standard rate structure, reporters are no longer negotiating one-off deals under pressure.
  3. Protects Against Exploitation. A published rate sheet makes it harder for agencies to pocket 100% of derivative revenue unnoticed.

What Should Be on the Rate Sheet?

Here is a proposed baseline structure reporters can adopt:

  • Condensed Transcripts & Word Indexes/Concordances:
    • Reporter receives 70% of billed page rate.
    • Example: $2.75/page on regular ($3.99) and $4.20/page on expedited ($5.99).
  • Rough Drafts:
    • Reporter receives 70% of rough draft fee billed to the client.
  • Realtime Feeds:
    • Reporter sets the base: $3.00–$4.00 per page minimum, regardless of agency surcharge.
  • AI Summaries & “Analytics” Products:
    • Reporter receives $0.75/page or $75 per transcript, whichever is greater.
    • Reporter’s certification does not extend to AI products.

This framework restores fairness by pegging derivative compensation back to the historic 70/30 standard and carving out explicit rates for emerging AI products.

Anticipating Agency Pushback

Agencies will argue that these products are “administrative” or “software-generated” and that reporters don’t deserve a share. Reporters should be ready with three responses:

  1. These products exist because of the transcript. Without the reporter, there is no data to condense, index, or summarize.
  2. Historically, reporters were paid for derivative work. The 70/30 model recognized that condensed transcripts and word indexes have value. Agencies eroded that standard, not reporters.
  3. Unjust enrichment is not a business model. Agencies cannot ethically charge clients transcript-level rates for derivative products while excluding the laborer whose work makes those products possible.

Linking Back to Reform

This conversation is not just about private contracts—it is about industry reform. In The Case for Court Reporter Cost Transparency and Industry Reform and Fixing the Broken Court Reporting Compensation Model: A FairSplit™ Proposal, I’ve argued that lack of transparency in billing allows agencies to quietly profit off derivative products while reporters and attorneys are left in the dark.

By adopting and publishing reporter-driven rate sheets, we bring transparency back into the system. Attorneys see what they are paying for. Reporters see what they are entitled to. Agencies can no longer hide the ball.

A Call to Action

If you are a reporter, do not wait for the Court Reporters Board or the legislature to fix this problem for you. Start today:

  • Draft a Reporter’s Rate Sheet Addendum that you attach to every agency contract.
  • Explicitly define compensation for condensed, indexes, rough drafts, realtime, and AI products.
  • Protect your notes and audio backup in writing, ensuring they cannot be repurposed without your consent.

The transcript is not raw data for agencies to exploit. It is the official record, created through your skill, certification, and labor. Every derivative product—from a condensed transcript to an AI summary—exists because of your work.

Fairness demands that you share in that value.

Safeguarding the Record Moving Forward

The economics of court reporting are shifting rapidly. Agencies are finding new ways to monetize transcripts, from word concordances to AI “Transcript Genius” tools, while reporters are being squeezed out of the pay structure. The time has come for reporters to stop absorbing these losses and start asserting their value.

A new rate sheet is more than just a list of numbers—it is a declaration of independence, fairness, and professionalism. It tells agencies, attorneys, and regulators that reporters will no longer work for half the value of their labor while others pocket the difference.

The official record depends on us. Our compensation should reflect it.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

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.