Every court reporter has faced this scenario: you get a job alert email about a trial, your heart leaps because you want the job, and then you see the “agency rates.” Maybe they’re close to yours, maybe they’re lower, but the implication is the same: will you match?
Some reporters hesitate. Some cave. Some rationalize. But here’s the truth: negotiating down isn’t negotiating at all. It’s selling out.
When an agency sends me a trial alert, I read it the same way I’ve read hundreds of others across my career: with excitement about the case and clarity about my role. But this time, something gave me pause. The agency’s email listed “their” rates: $750 for a half day, $1,500 for a full day.
As a realtime reporter in California, where the cost of living and regulatory framework is unique, my current published rates are $800 for a half day and $1,600 for a full day, which has remained unchanged for years and are consistent with what other reporters in my region charge. That’s not a huge difference. But here’s the problem: my rates aren’t negotiable. They never have been, and they never will be.
My rates are not negotiable down. But negotiation is still very much part of this profession. Real negotiation means advocating for the value of my skill, consistency, and availability — not cutting deals or selling myself short.
That’s the kind of negotiation court reporters must embrace if we want to protect both our livelihood and the integrity of the record.
And there’s a very good reason for that.
Rate Consistency Protects the Profession
Court reporters in California operate under strict legal and ethical frameworks. Government Code §§ 69941.1–69959 and Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.320 prohibit us from entering into “contracting” arrangements that could compromise impartiality, fairness, or public trust.
That means we cannot:
- Offer discounted rates to certain agencies, firms, or clients.
- Negotiate lower prices in exchange for steady work.
- Enter into contracts that set us apart from colleagues doing the same job.
Why? Because our role is to provide a verbatim record of proceedings—an official record that must remain above reproach. If one client gets a deal and another doesn’t, impartiality is jeopardized. It’s not just about money—it’s about the appearance of favoritism, which can erode trust in the record itself.
When reporters apply their rates consistently across all clients, the system is fair, transparent, and untainted by the perception of special treatment.
The Pressure to “Match”
But let’s be honest. Reporters face tremendous pressure from agencies and firms that want to reduce their own costs. In my case, the difference between the agency’s suggested rate ($750/$1,500) and my published rate ($800/$1,600) is just $50 per half day. A relatively small number.
It would be easy to say: “Fine, I’ll match your rate this time so I don’t lose the job.”
But that’s a slippery slope. If I give one agency a discount, what happens when another finds out? What happens when a firm requests my appearance and compares their bill to someone else’s? Suddenly I’m not just adjusting a rate—I’m undermining the very principle of rate uniformity that keeps this profession ethical.
It’s not about $50. It’s about fairness, legality, and professionalism.
Rates Are Not Just Numbers
Court reporting is a highly skilled profession. Rates reflect not only the hours spent in the courtroom or deposition room but also:
- Years of education and licensing.
- Real-time skill that captures every word, nuance, and interruption.
- Hours of transcript production outside of proceedings.
- Equipment, software, and certification costs.
- The weight of responsibility for producing an official, appeal-proof record.
When reporters discount their rates—even slightly—they devalue all of this. They send a message that the skill, the training, the impartiality, and the responsibility can be bargained down like a used car.
That’s not just a disservice to me as a reporter. It’s a disservice to the profession as a whole.
Agencies vs. Reporters – Who Sets the Rate?
Here’s another important distinction: agencies don’t set my rates. I do.
Agencies may choose to publish or circulate their own internal rate sheets, but that doesn’t override the independent reporter’s obligation to maintain consistency. My rate sheet is widely distributed and publicly available. It’s the same for every agency, every client, every case.
That consistency protects me—and it also protects the agencies I work with. If a dispute ever arises about favoritism or contracting, agencies that hire me can stand firm knowing they’re paying the same rate as everyone else. There’s no special treatment, no ethical gray area.
What Negotiation Really Means
Too often, “negotiation” in our profession gets distorted. Agencies or firms present their number, and reporters are made to feel like the only response is to come down, to bend, to undercut. But that’s not negotiation — that’s capitulation.
True negotiation is about advocating for your value. It’s saying:
- Here are my published rates.
- Here’s why they’re fair, consistent, and legally sound.
- Here’s what you gain by hiring me: impartiality, accuracy, and professionalism.
When you present your rates firmly and consistently, you are negotiating from a place of strength — not weakness.
Negotiating for the Right Things
So if negotiating isn’t about dropping rates, what is it about?
- Clarifying Scope: Half day vs. full day, realtime vs. standard, rough drafts, expedites — all of these are negotiable add-ons. You can discuss the scope of services while keeping base rates firm.
- Asserting Value: You bring appellate-level experience, technical accuracy, and ethical integrity. That’s worth negotiating for.
- Securing Commitments: Negotiation can mean ensuring you’re booked for the full trial, not just a day or two. That guarantees stability for you and continuity for the client.
Those are real negotiations. They strengthen your position instead of eroding it.
Reframing the Conversation
Instead of letting agencies frame negotiation as “coming down,” flip the script:
- Agency asks: Can you match $750/$1,500?
- Reporter responds: My published rates are $800/$1,600, consistently applied to all clients. That ensures fairness and compliance with state law. What I can do is guarantee my availability for the entire trial, and I can provide realtime, rough drafts, and expedited transcripts if needed.
You’ve now reframed the conversation. It’s not about whether you’ll sell yourself short — it’s about whether they recognize the value you bring.
Saying “No” Without Closing the Door
So what do you do when you want the job but can’t legally or ethically agree to the rate listed?
You respond with professionalism:
“Thank you for sending this trial assignment. I’d love to cover it. My published rates are $800 half day / $1,600 full day, which have been consistently applied to all agencies for years. Please let me know if you’d like me to accept this assignment at those rates.”
That’s it. Clear. Polite. Firm.
You’re not being difficult—you’re being ethical. And more often than not, agencies respect that, because they know the law requires it.
Why Consistency Builds Trust
Over the years, my consistent rates have become a calling card. Attorneys, agencies, and colleagues know that what I quote today is what I’ll quote tomorrow. There’s no guesswork, no games, no “who gets the better deal.”
That reliability builds trust. And trust is everything in this profession.
When a witness, attorney, or judge relies on the record I produce, they aren’t just relying on my machine and my fingers. They’re relying on my integrity. If I can’t maintain integrity in something as straightforward as billing, how can I expect anyone to trust me with the far greater responsibility of capturing every word spoken in a trial?
The Bigger Picture – Protecting the Market
This isn’t just about my personal rates. The entire reporting profession depends on cConsistency is everything. Every time one reporter holds the line, it strengthens us all. Every time one gives in, it weakens the whole.
When we negotiate down, we aren’t just trimming our paycheck — we’re signaling that reporters are interchangeable commodities. That perception fuels a race to the bottom, handing leverage to agencies that maximize profits at the expense of skilled professionals.
When reporters discount or negotiate rates, they:
- Undercut their colleagues.
- Create a race-to-the-bottom market dynamic.
- Hand leverage to agencies looking to squeeze more profit from the profession.
We’ve seen this play out in other industries: when professionals compete on price instead of quality, quality declines. If we allow that in court reporting, the record — and justice itself — are at risk.
Consistency isn’t just ethical; it’s protective. It keeps the market stable, ensures fairness among colleagues, and preserves stenography’s role in safeguarding the record. That distinction is the difference between survival and extinction for our profession.
Holding the Line
So when I see a trial alert with rates that don’t match mine, I don’t panic. I don’t cave. I respond the same way I always have: by upholding my published rates.
It’s not about being inflexible. It’s about being consistent, professional, and ethical.
My rates are my rates—for everyone, every time. That’s how I protect my license. That’s how I protect my profession. And most importantly, that’s how I protect the record.
Holding the Line Pays Off
Minutes after I responded with my published rates, the agency sent me the job. No haggling, no drama — just a straightforward acceptance.
That’s the point. When we stand firm, we don’t lose opportunities; we gain respect. Agencies recognize professionalism, consistency, and value. Negotiating for your worth doesn’t mean lowering your price — it means refusing to sell yourself short. And when you do, the work still comes.
StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.
Disclaimer
This article reflects my perspective and analysis as a court reporter and eyewitness. It is not legal advice, nor is it intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney.
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):
STENOIMPERIUM 
Right on! But one thing you missed, higher credentials warrant higher rates.
Last year, I helped a CRR reporter, who has worked with U.S. Legal for years, change her rates. Her page rate was so low, in the $2.70 mark for an original. For ten years, she has worked solely for U.S. Legal; they never gave her a “raise”, of course, because she’s a subcontractor. I told her to charge at least $4.25, but she couldn’t do it. So she did something in the $3.20 range and was afraid of repercussion. But, alas, they honored her higher rates (for copies and hourly, too). Still too low.
In Florida, few reporters ask for half-day rates.
My other RPR friend was charging a low hourly rate in the courtroom. She now is firm about her rates and raised them to $125 an hour. But U.S. Legal still pays my other friend a low hourly rate in the courtroom.
Late last year, I was personally hired for a two-day divorce trial. I told him my rates and he agreed. On Sunday evening at 8:45 p.m., he said they had settled but still wanted me there to report their settlement agreement. On Sunday evening after his email, I immediately replied that we had already agreed to a full-day rate. He never responded.
In the morning, I showed up super early (travel and setup-time was two hours), set up and was waiting to speak to him. When I told him I was charging $1,000 for the day, he started screaming at me in front of the clerk, bailiff, his clients and opposing counsel. He asked opposing counsel if she agreed that that was inappropriate and she said yes. Yet, both their clients had plenty of assets. I told him I would then pack up and leave. He begged the clerk to turn on the digital audio recording. (And, by the way, I had just told everyone that I was recently diagnosed with a high-grade aggressive form of cancer and he still screamed at me.)
Then the client of opposing counsel, the Wife, whispered to her attorney. The female attorney approached the male attorney screaming at me, and they agreed to split the cost: $500 each.
Now, the judge wasn’t in the courtroom when the screaming attorney was acting like a toddler, but they can hear everything in their office. The judge came out and asked if there was anything wrong, and I said no. We had resolved the situation. But I was shaken to the core. As we were on the record, for the first time in my life, I was crying and the tears were streaming down my face. I had to grab tissue to catch the snot before it hit my steno keys.
The attorney told me he would never hire me again and I told him, “That’s fine. I probably won’t be here even if you had.” What a horrible man, and, surprisingly, so was opposing counsel. They had their expert witnesses waiting to testify if the trial had happened and, surely, they were paid ahead of time.
Anyway, I need to get back to my expedite. Ramping up for the RT, daily-transript trial with 4 top-notch law firms, all quality attorneys, and who appreciate my skills. As an extension of courtesy to the judge, I am giving him a tablet for free with realtime; he is very happy and thanks me for it. Sometimes court reporters need to extend good will.
My bestie court reporter friend (with every possible designation after her name) is flying in and we are going to have a great time providing quality work. Can’t wait. I love my job.
LikeLike
Linda, first, I want to say how deeply sorry I am that you went through that experience—especially while facing a cancer diagnosis. No one should ever be treated that way, least of all in such a vulnerable moment. The strength it took to stand your ground under those circumstances is extraordinary, and I truly admire that.
I also really appreciate the stories and insight you shared—they reflect a lot of what so many reporters quietly go through.
I do have a different view on credentials. In California, reporters don’t need NCRA certifications to perform at a high level, and my realtime accuracy is 99.9%.
In my view, the stronger solution would be for every state to have its own licensure exam and regulatory authority, using a standardized title — similar to how the National Society of Professional Engineers supports the PE designation. Each state would run its own licensing and enforcement, but the title would be uniform, protected, and backed by real regulatory teeth, just like state bar associations protect the title “Attorney.” That’s the kind of structure that could actually safeguard our profession, rather than relying on voluntary association credentials with no enforcement power.For me, rates are about skill, consistency, and compliance — not just letters.
LikeLike
May I ask, who is writing these articles? I do appreciate them – just want to know whose information this is.
Lori Byrd | Realtime Court Reporter
RPR, CRR, CLR, CA-CSR 13023, CA-CCRR 209, KS-CCR 1681
Realtime Systems Reporter
LikeLike
I really appreciate that — thank you. I prefer to let the information and ideas speak for themselves. Everything I share is grounded in real experience, current law, and industry practice, with the goal of supporting reporters and protecting the record.
LikeLike
Wow! 😮 in Texas, it’s $600 for a full day in court. Maybe I’d be able to finally get out of apartment living and get a house if I was so lucky to charge what you are.
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
I hear you — the differences from state to state can be huge. California’s cost of living, licensing requirements, and legal framework are unique, which is why rates here look different from those in Texas or other regions. My rates are in line with what reporters in my area charge, and they’ve stayed consistent for years.
I genuinely hope reporters everywhere can negotiate for their true value — regional differences aside, we all deserve to be compensated fairly for the skill and responsibility this job requires.
LikeLike
I get it. Honestly, though, the cost of living in the DFW metroplex is very similar to California and the licensing requirements are similar as well.
Before now, I thought Texas was the highest paid state for Court work.
I may be taking the California test, now that I know this information. 🙂
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
That’s a great point — and yes, I should clarify: the rates I mentioned are for in-court work here in California. We’re seeing a real shift back to in-person proceedings, and many courts are actively seeking live reporters again. The remote window that opened during COVID is narrowing quickly, so understanding state licensure and in-person opportunities here is more relevant than ever.
LikeLike