“No Such Thing as a Job Nobody Wants” – Debunking a Convenient Myth in the Court Reporting Industry

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

For years, digital-centric agencies have repeated a familiar refrain to justify their growing use of non-stenographic methods: “We only use digital reporters for the jobs no one else wants.”

On the surface, the statement sounds harmless—even practical. But look closer, and you’ll find that this narrative is less about operational necessity and more about economic convenience. It’s a myth designed to normalize a shift away from trained professionals while obscuring the reality that there is no such thing as a deposition “no one wants.”

1. “Undesirable” Jobs Are a Matter of Perspective, Not Fact

What agencies often label as “undesirable” are typically shorter workers’ compensation or personal injury matters—the half-day or one-hour depositions that may not generate the same revenue as a multi-day expert arbitration. But for many reporters, those jobs are the golden tickets of work-life balance.

Some seasoned reporters prefer short assignments at the end of their careers to avoid the grueling pace of technical litigation. Parents may select short jobs that allow them to be home in time for after-school activities. Others strategically fill their schedules with two or three half-day assignments, earning solid income without the fatigue of marathon sessions.

In other words, “undesirable” depends entirely on who you ask. The work is out there—and it’s wanted.

2. Flexibility Has Always Been a Core Selling Point of Stenography

One of the defining appeals of a stenographic career has always been flexibility: work when you want, how you want, and as much (or as little) as you choose. Reporters build careers that fit their lifestyles.

Agencies that claim certain jobs “go uncovered” because reporters aren’t interested are often overlooking a simpler reality: they may need to pay slightly more to attract talent. A rush PI depo on two hours’ notice isn’t undesirable—it just may require a premium to respect the reporter’s time, preparation, and schedule. That’s not scarcity; that’s basic market economics.

3. Short Jobs Play a Critical Role in Reporter Development

No reporter starts their career on a 10-day patent infringement trial. Shorter, lower-complexity jobs are essential training grounds for newer stenographers and voice reporters. These assignments build speed, confidence, and transcript turnaround habits. They are where rookies learn to fly before they handle high-stakes proceedings.

When agencies siphon these “starter” jobs to digital recorders under the guise of filling gaps, they’re not just shifting work—they’re eroding the pipeline of future stenographic talent. If new reporters can’t get a foothold on short depositions, how will they ever develop into the experts agencies claim they can’t find?

4. The “Emergency Coverage” Problem Is Self-Inflicted

Many digital-first firms point to uncovered jobs as evidence of a stenographer shortage. But often, these “emergencies” are manufactured by their own scheduling practices.

Take, for example, a firm sending out job blasts at 8:38 a.m. for 10:00 a.m. starts—with nine uncovered jobs. That’s not proof reporters don’t want the work; that’s proof the firm overextended its capacity and is now relying on digital recorders as a patch.

Stenographers thrive on preparation and communication. Agencies that plan properly rarely encounter these “nobody wants it” scenarios. Those that don’t? They’re not exposing a shortage—they’re exposing their own mismanagement.

5. Profit Motives Are Driving the Digital Push

Behind the rhetoric lies a less flattering truth: digital recording gives certain agencies greater financial control.

By using digital recorders, some firms retain the bulk of copy sales, realtime feeds, and rough ASCII revenue—compensation that would otherwise go directly to the stenographer who produced the record. These firms aren’t handing over “undesirable” jobs. They’re redirecting profitable opportunities into their own bank accounts while minimizing payouts to the people actually doing the work.

It’s not about filling coverage gaps. It’s about retaining margin.

6. Real Clients Want Real Expertise

Ironically, many of the jobs being diverted to digital recorders are realtime proceedings—the very kind that demand the precision and responsiveness only a trained stenographer can deliver.

Some digital-centric firms have even declined to work with high-caliber reporters simply because they’ve criticized the firm’s business model. Instead of prioritizing client experience, they’ve opted to send less-qualified coverage, hoping attorneys won’t notice the difference. That decision says far more about the firm’s values than about reporter availability.

7. Undervaluing “Small Jobs” Undermines the Profession

Short PI depos, workers’ compensation hearings, and other so-called “less desirable” proceedings keep the wheels of justice turning every day. They are where injured workers testify, where liability is determined, where real people’s lives are affected. Treating these jobs as disposable or second-class devalues not just the work—but the people who depend on it.

When agencies divert this work to digital methods, they are effectively saying: accuracy and accountability matter less when the case is smaller. That’s a dangerous precedent in a legal system that depends on the integrity of the record at every level.

8. A Profession, Not a Patch

The idea that digital reporting fills only the jobs “no one wants” is a convenient fiction. It allows agencies to quietly expand digital coverage while avoiding scrutiny from attorneys, reporters, and regulators. But the reality is clear:

  • Those jobs are wanted.
  • They’re essential for training and career longevity.
  • They represent meaningful legal proceedings deserving of professional coverage.
  • And they reveal more about agency priorities than reporter availability.

Stenographers have always been adaptable. The profession doesn’t need “patches”; it needs fair practices, honest communication, and respect for the work at every level—from the one-hour PI to the ten-day arbitration.

Final Thoughts

Calling short or lower-complexity jobs “undesirable” is not just misleading—it’s corrosive. It dismisses the preferences of working reporters, undermines the development of new talent, and masks profit-driven decisions behind a veil of necessity.

There is no such thing as a job nobody wants. There is only work that needs to be fairly valued, fairly distributed, and professionally covered.

And that’s exactly what stenographic court reporters have been doing for over a century.

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):

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.

2 thoughts on ““No Such Thing as a Job Nobody Wants” – Debunking a Convenient Myth in the Court Reporting Industry”

  1. Thank you for this message. I really appreciate it. This is yet another way that agencies alienate clients from steno court reporters. From my experience, these box agencies don’t want attorneys becoming chummy with the court reporters, because they are afraid agencies won’t be in the deal to take out hefty commissions. What bugs me is most attorneys go along with the agencies, but have negative attitudes towards court reporters because we make “all the money.” Hopefully there will be a time in the near future when attorneys can just call an individual court reporter directly without going through an agency all the time.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thank you — you’ve nailed it. This dynamic has been quietly shaping the industry for years. Agencies built walls between attorneys and reporters to protect their margins, not to improve service. The irony is, the people actually producing the record are the ones attorneys are kept farthest from.

      The tide is turning, though. Remote work, digital tools, and growing awareness are making direct relationships between attorneys and reporters not only possible, but inevitable. Once attorneys realize they can work directly with the certified professionals who create and certify the record, everyone wins — except the middlemen who’ve been taking a cut for simply standing in the way.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to stenoimperium Cancel reply