The Real Markup – Why Attorneys Think Reporters Are Overcharging (and Who’s Actually Pocketing the Profit)

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

For years, a quiet but powerful misconception has distorted how attorneys view court reporters. Ask a litigator about transcript costs and many will tell you: “Reporters charge too much.”

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: it’s not the reporters overcharging you. It’s the agencies in the middle.

“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… 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.”

That captures it. For decades, national agencies inserted themselves as gatekeepers—controlling scheduling, billing, production, and distribution—then built empires by marking up the labor of the licensed professional who actually creates and certifies the record.

And now, with remote work, digital tools, and growing attorney awareness, those walls are cracking.

I. The Economic Sleight of Hand

When an attorney receives a hefty invoice, it usually arrives from the agency, not the reporter. That invoice can reflect rates two or even three times higher than the reporter actually earned.

A typical pattern:

  • Reporter’s page rate: e.g., $3.50 per original page; $0.75 per copy page.
  • Agency billing rate: e.g., $6.50 per original page; $2.50 per copy page.
  • Spread: The agency pockets the difference—often 40%–60%—without adding corresponding value to the creation of the record.

Multiply that spread across thousands of pages and multiple copies, and the margins become enormous. Attorneys feel gouged—and they are—but not by the reporter whose license, presence, skill, and certification legally anchor the record.

II. The Hidden Upsells: Derivative Products the Reporter Often Isn’t Paid For

Here’s the part most invoices obscure: ancillary line items that agencies monetize, but rarely share with the reporter who produced the underlying record.

  • Condensed Transcript (4-up/8-up) PDFs.
    Attorneys are often charged add-on fees for condensed versions. Reporters typically receive $0 from this upsell, even though it’s merely a reformat of their certified work product.
  • Word Index / Concordance.
    The alphabetical word list and page-line references can carry a separate line item. Again, in most arrangements reporters receive no share of that fee.
  • Exhibits Handling & Hosting.
    Scanning/OCR, Bates stamping, hyperlinking, repository “access,” printing, shipping—these often appear as billable “services.” Reporters, who introduced and tracked those exhibits in real time, usually receive none of the exhibit revenue.
  • Repository / “Platform” or “Tech” Fees.
    Many agencies charge monthly or per-matter fees for access, uploads, distribution, or “archiving.” The reporter generally isn’t compensated from these platform charges.
  • Electronic Delivery / Processing Fees.
    “E-delivery,” “processing,” “file-handling,” or “production” surcharges are common. Reporters typically don’t participate in that revenue either.
  • Copy-Order Surcharges.
    Additional-law-firm copies can carry steep markups; reporters may get a contractual copy rate, but many don’t share in the agency’s higher-billed copy price.

In other words, agencies aren’t just marking up the core page rate—they are stacking derivative revenue streams on top of the transcript the reporter created, while the reporter often sees none of that ancillary income. This is a key reason attorney invoices feel bloated and why the blame gets misassigned to the reporter.

III. How the Wall Was Built

Over 30 years, national conglomerates consolidated smaller firms and normalized the “full-service” model. Their core strategy: control of the attorney–reporter relationship.

  • Scheduling gatekeeping. Reporters were discouraged from direct client contact; all bookings flow through the agency.
  • Transcript distribution. Agencies intercept delivery, masking the true economics.
  • Client lock-in. Perks, portals, and bundles make switching inconvenient—while hiding markups and derivative fees.

The outcome: the legally responsible professional is economically and relationally sidelined, while the intermediary captures the spread and the add-ons.

IV. The Legal Irony: Reporters Bear the Responsibility

By statute and rule, only certified court reporters create and certify the official verbatim record. Agencies are not licensed to do that. Yet it’s the reporter—not the agency—who must:

  • Attend and take down every word verbatim
  • Swear in witnesses
  • Produce, proofread, and certify the transcript
  • Safeguard the record

If the record is challenged, it’s the reporter’s name and license on the line. The entity pocketing the markups and derivative fees is not the one assuming the legal risk for record integrity.

V. Why Attorneys Are Waking Up

  1. Remote proceedings lowered the drawbridge.
    During COVID, lawyers dealt directly with reporters on Zoom and saw how responsive direct coordination could be.
  2. Modern tools removed the “value-add” mystique.
    Calendaring, secure portals, e-signature, delivery—all manageable without a middleman.
  3. Transparency questions are rising.
    Attorneys comparing invoices are discovering the gulf between what reporters are paid and what agencies bill—especially on derivative line items.
  4. Ethics alignment favors licensed professionals.
    Working directly with the person who certifies the record better aligns with attorneys’ supervisory duties in remote/hybrid matters and overall diligence obligations.

VI. Everyone Wins When Attorneys Work Directly With Reporters

Connecting directly delivers tangible benefits:

  • Fair compensation for the skilled professional, which sustains quality and availability.
  • Clear, honest pricing without opaque markups and surprise “platform” or “processing” fees.
  • Faster turnaround and better communication—fewer layers, fewer delays.
  • Aligned legal responsibility with the person who actually creates and certifies the record.

The only losers are the middlemen who profit from the spread and the derivative add-ons.

VII. A Practical Checklist for Attorneys (Use This on Your Next Matter)

  1. Ask for a line-item quotebefore the proceeding that distinguishes:
    • Reporter’s page/copy rates
    • Any rush/rough/realtime rates (who gets paid what)
    • All derivative items (condensed, concordance, exhibit handling/hosting, repository, e-delivery) with per-unit pricing
  2. Insist on pass-through pricing or no-charge bundling for condensed/concordance.
    If you’re being billed, verify who is being paid.
  3. Clarify exhibit economics.
    Who scans/OCRs? What’s the rate? Are there hosting or “repository” fees? For how long? Can you opt out?
  4. Receive the invoice from the reporter (or reporter-centered platform).
    You’ll see the true economics—and usually pay less overall.
  5. Build a reporter roster.
    Know your CSRs by name and license number. Keep direct contact information and book them directly.

VIII. Conclusion

The belief that court reporters are “overcharging” was shaped by decades of agency markups and a forest of derivative fees layered atop the transcript. Reporters—the only licensed professionals who can create and certify the record—often receive none of the money generated by condensed transcripts, concordances, exhibit handling, repositories, and “tech” surcharges.

As attorneys scrutinize invoices and reconnect directly with reporters, the economics—and the ethics—snap back into alignment. The system works better, costs come down, quality goes up, and accountability rests where the law already puts it: with the certified professional who makes the record real.

The tide is turning. Tear down the wall. Call the reporter.

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