Agencies Exploit Reporters Twice – Once for Their Labor, Once for Their Marketing

For decades, court reporters have carried the weight of an industry that profits from their skill while diminishing their value. Agencies were once our allies, providing scheduling support, billing services, and client coordination. But over time, the relationship shifted. Today, reporters find themselves exploited, not once, but twice — first for their labor in producing the verbatim record, and second for their unpaid role as de facto sales reps.

This exploitation is rarely acknowledged openly, yet it has warped the profession and eroded our independence. It’s time to lay the truth bare.

---

The First Exploitation: Labor Without Equity

At its core, a reporter’s job is to capture and certify the official record of legal proceedings. The transcript is not just another deliverable — it is the foundation of due process. Yet agencies treat it like any other product in a supply chain.

Here’s what happens:

• Low transparency in billing. Reporters rarely see what attorneys are charged. Agencies hide the markup and keep reporters in the dark about true value.
• Delayed payment. “Pay when paid” policies and 90-day terms shift financial risk onto reporters. We’re forced to bankroll agency operations, with no guarantee of timely compensation.

---

Derivative Products – Paid vs. Unpaid

Reporters are compensated for some derivative products — rough drafts, realtime feeds, and expedited transcripts. These involve extra skill and extra work, and it’s right that reporters share in that revenue.

But there’s a second category of products where agencies profit without compensating the reporter at all: word indexes, concordances, archival services, exhibits, and increasingly, deposition summaries. These are all built directly from the reporter’s work product, yet the revenue stream bypasses the reporter entirely.

This “carve-out” system allows agencies to monetize the transcript multiple times while cutting the reporter out of downstream value. The imbalance isn’t that reporters never get paid on extras — it’s that agencies keep inventing new ones they don’t share.

---

Copy Order Abuses

Copy orders are one area where agencies are supposed to pay reporters. By law and by contract, when an attorney orders a copy of the transcript, the reporter earns a share. But here’s where the abuse comes in:

• “Pay when paid” schemes: For years, agencies told reporters they’d only get their copy-order share once the agency got paid. In practice, that often meant months — or never.
• Withholding funds: Some agencies pocket the money, keeping copy orders in limbo accounts indefinitely. Reporters do the work, the agency gets paid, but the reporter never sees their cut.
• Industry rumors and evidence: One well-known example involves HG out of Texas (since sold). According to an agency owner who spoke to a friend of HG’s former accountant, HG had an internal account holding unpaid copy-order revenues totaling over $3 million. The accountant allegedly took documentation of it when she left. While this account is double-hearsay, many in the profession find it credible — and it illustrates the scale of possible abuse.
• California reform: Recognizing this abuse, California law now requires agencies to pay reporters within 30 days, effectively ending the “pay-when-paid” excuse in this state. While enforcement remains to be seen, the rule creates a bright-line standard that reporters can point to when agencies drag their feet.

The point is this – agencies aren’t just delaying payment; in some cases, they may be deliberately warehousing revenue that belongs to reporters. That’s not just unfair — it borders on theft.

---

The Second Exploitation – Reporters as Sales Reps

Not all agencies handle marketing the same way. The divide between small, reporter-owned shops and the large “Big Box” firms is telling:

• Smaller agencies often lean on their reporters to do the bulk of marketing. Reporters are expected to bring cookies, candy, or gifts to depositions, to charm attorneys, and to “sell” the agency’s services in the room. This is unpaid labor and blurs the line between neutrality and salesmanship.
• Larger agencies can afford sales teams. They prefer reporters not to do overt wining-and-dining — but they still conscript reporters as brand carriers. Reporters are told to hand out business cards with the agency’s name, while every transcript delivered is stamped with the agency’s logo and marketing material.

The reality is, reporters are not paid to be nice. We should be requested based on merit — skill, accuracy, and availability — not because we brown-nosed an attorney with candy or cultivated a friendship over drinks.

---

The Ethical Breach – When Neutrality Slips

The deeper harm goes beyond unpaid marketing. Sometimes, agency owners — and even individual reporters — cross into outright unethical territory:

• Agency owners as “consultants.” I once sat in a trial where, during jury deliberations, attorneys pulled me aside and asked for my opinion on how the jurors would vote. They told me that the agency owner they usually worked with always shared her verdict predictions, and she was “always right.” That is a profound breach of neutrality. Reporters are not hired as consultants; we are guardians of the record.
• Socializing during ongoing trials. I’ve witnessed reporters going out drinking with attorneys mid-trial and sharing their opinions of the case. That’s not harmless small talk — it gives one side an unfair advantage. Reporters, like jurors, experience the case in real time. Sharing our impressions before a verdict amounts to giving one party a “mock jury” edge that the other side doesn’t get. That is bias, plain and simple.
• My own practice. When pressed, I tell attorneys I’ll share my thoughts after the verdict comes in. Almost always, they don’t follow up — which proves how frivolous and inappropriate their request was in the first place.

When reporters act as amateur consultants, whether encouraged by agencies or on their own, they compromise the very foundation of impartiality. That destroys the profession’s credibility far more than any cookie basket ever could.

---

The Gaslighting of “Marketing Yourself”

When agencies tell reporters to market themselves better, they’re not empowering us. They’re gaslighting us.

Because here’s the truth: when we bring in business, the client belongs to the agency, not to us. We can spend years cultivating relationships with attorneys, but the minute we part ways with the agency, those clients are locked up under contract.

Any other industry would call this what it is — exploitation. Sales reps get commissions. Business development staff get salaries and bonuses. Only in court reporting are professionals told to market, sell, and charm clients for free, all while being paid a fraction of what the agency bills.

---

The Client Ownership Trap

As a young reporter — and a former sales executive — I was excited to bring my first client to an agency. We had an agreement: I would get an extra cut of every job that client brought in, not just the ones I personally reported but also when other reporters covered their matters.

That never happened. I never got scheduled on my own client’s jobs again, and I never saw the promised extra cut. The agency took the client, but I was cut out.

This is the trap: agencies tell reporters to “market themselves,” but the minute a client signs on, the agency locks them up as their client. The reporter who did the work to bring them in is sidelined. In any other industry, that would be called what it is — misappropriation of business development. In court reporting, it’s treated as standard practice.

---

Double Extraction – The Real Business Model

When you step back, the model becomes clear:

1. Exploit the reporter’s labor → Maximize revenue on transcripts, minimize payouts.
2. Exploit the reporter’s relationships → Make them do unpaid marketing to grow the client base.

It’s a double extraction system — squeezing every ounce of value from the reporter’s work and their social capital, while giving little in return.

This is why reporters feel increasingly alienated from agencies. It’s not just about money. It’s about respect, boundaries, and professionalism.

---

What Needs to Change

If agencies want to regain credibility with reporters — and if they want to play a legitimate role in the profession’s future — they must change. That means:

• Hire sales professionals. Stop asking reporters to do your marketing.
• Respect neutrality. Keep reporters out of client-wooing practices that compromise impartiality.
• Share derivative revenue. If you sell realtime, roughs, or expedited fees, reporters should receive a fair share.
• End “pay when paid.” Reporters are not your bank. Pay within 30 days as a matter of professionalism — as California law now requires.
• Transparency in billing. Let reporters see what attorneys are charged, so they understand the true value of their work.

Agencies that adopt these principles could rebuild trust. Those that don’t will continue to be seen as extractive middlemen standing between reporters and the attorneys who actually value their work.

---

Why It Matters

Some may shrug and say, “That’s just business.” But court reporting isn’t just any business. The work product is the foundation of legal rights, appeals, and justice. If the system relies on squeezing reporters dry — financially, ethically, and professionally — the quality of the record itself is at risk.

Reporters are not sales reps. We are not marketing staff. We are not vendors. We are officers of the court, guardians of the record, and professionals trained to deliver accuracy under pressure.

When agencies exploit us once for our labor and again for our marketing, they not only disrespect reporters — they undermine the very integrity of the system they claim to serve.

---

Not All Agencies, But One Is Too Many

It’s worth saying plainly: not every agency engages in these practices. There are agencies that pay promptly, share revenue fairly, and respect the reporter’s role as a neutral officer of the court. Those agencies deserve recognition.

But in a profession where impartiality and trust are everything, even one agency cutting corners is too many. Every time an agency delays pay, withholds copy order revenue, or asks reporters to “market” in ways that compromise neutrality, it erodes the credibility of the profession as a whole. Reporters carry the burden of those reputational costs — while agencies profit.

---

Commending the Exceptions

Not all agencies exploit reporters. Several stand out as models of professionalism: Robin Leonard CSR Agency, Hines Agency (owned by Jennifer Hines, CSR), and iDepo (founded by Irene Nakamura). These reporter-owned agencies set the standard — fast pay, ethical practices, and true professionalism. Robin Leonard exemplifies integrity by resolving issues directly, rather than gossiping or blacklisting. Jennifer Hines and Irene Nakamura likewise ensure fairness, transparency, and respect for reporters.

There are many others who deserve recognition too, but these names come most readily to mind. They prove that responsible, ethical agencies are not only possible, but thriving.

---

***Some agency owners are so uncomfortable with this conversation that they prefer to silence it, rather than confront it. After I published this piece, one Texas agency owner immediately asked to be removed from my mailing list. That, in itself, speaks volumes. That reaction tells me something important: these conversations are hitting the real pain points. If the practices I describe weren’t happening, there would be nothing to take offense at. Silence or retreat isn’t accountability. We need open dialogue and reform — not avoidance.

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):