The Cracks Beneath the Surface – Rebuilding the Foundation of the Court Reporting Profession

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

The image is haunting: a two-story yellow house stands defiantly against a gray sky, but half of its structure is gone. The right side appears intact—windows still in place, porch light hanging, door centered proudly—while the left side is gutted, exposing beams and rubble. It’s a house that looks solid from one angle, but step back, and the fragility is undeniable.

This is the perfect metaphor for the state of the court reporting profession in 2025. From the outside, to those who only glance quickly, the system still appears stable: depositions are being taken, transcripts are produced, trials move forward. But those of us who live inside this “house” every day—court reporters, attorneys, judges, and litigants who depend on a verbatim record—know how dangerously hollow parts of the structure have become.

1. A Profession Built on a Once-Solid Foundation

For over a century, stenographic court reporters have been the bedrock of the American justice system. Our shorthand machines capture every word, pause, and interruption—creating the only accurate, legally recognized record of proceedings. This role has always been central, not peripheral. In courtrooms, reporters stand as impartial guardians of the record; in depositions, they ensure testimony meets the standards of admissibility under the rules of evidence.

This was our foundation: skill, presence, impartiality, and legal weight. The walls of the house were built with rigorous licensing requirements, ethical standards, and rules of court that recognized the importance of the reporter’s live presence.

But over time, cracks began to form—not all at once, and not always in obvious places.

2. Neglected Maintenance: The Warning Signs We Ignored

Every house requires upkeep. Foundations shift. Weather wears down the paint. Termites work quietly. And for decades, while the profession continued to function, critical maintenance was deferred.

  • Legislative erosion: Statutes like California’s CCP § 269 and § 2025.320 long ensured a reporter’s presence. But legislative and regulatory bodies, pressured by private equity-backed firms, began carving loopholes—introducing remote testimony rules, notary alternatives, and “digital reporting” pilots that weakened the profession’s legal footing.
  • Agency consolidation: Independent agencies—the carpenters and masons of our professional structure—were absorbed by large, investor-owned conglomerates. These companies often valued profit margins over the integrity of the record, treating reporters as interchangeable labor rather than licensed officers of the court.
  • Technological creep: While technology itself isn’t the enemy, the way it has been deployed often is. Digital audio recording systems have been sold to courts and law firms as cheaper “equivalents,” despite clear hearsay and reliability issues. Automated speech recognition (ASR) is marketed as a silver bullet, despite failing to meet evidentiary standards in real legal proceedings.

Like a homeowner who ignores a growing crack in the wall, the profession didn’t always respond swiftly to these developments. Many reporters trusted that “the system” would protect their role. But the system itself was slowly being undermined.

3. The Storm Hits: Structural Collapse Begins

Every house faces storms. In our case, that storm came in multiple waves:

  • Reporter shortages, real and manufactured, were used as political justification to replace stenographers with digital systems rather than address recruitment and retention failures.
  • COVID-19 accelerated remote proceedings, and with them, digital recording systems quietly replaced reporters in many jurisdictions under the guise of “emergency measures.”
  • Legislative ambushes like California’s AB 711 and Nevada’s SB 191 reshaped compensation structures and opened doors for non-stenographic “alternatives,” often drafted with heavy influence from the very agencies that stand to profit.
  • Public misunderstanding grew. Attorneys began to believe reporters were “overcharging,” not realizing agencies were the ones adding massive markups while paying reporters a fraction. Meanwhile, the public narrative shifted toward technology and cost-savings—not accuracy, admissibility, or due process.

The result? Half the house was ripped away. What remains is exposed, vulnerable, and perilously unbalanced.

4. Foundational Damage Has Consequences

When the foundation crumbles, the entire structure is at risk. For the court reporting profession, this doesn’t just mean job losses—it means legal chaos:

  • Evidentiary vulnerability: Testimony captured by uncertified, non-present digital recorders often fails hearsay exceptions. Without a licensed reporter, the transcript can become inadmissible or vulnerable to challenge.
  • Appeals jeopardized: Inaccurate or incomplete transcripts lead to appealable errors. Cases have been reversed or remanded because the record could not be reconstructed accurately.
  • Access inequities: Wealthier parties may hire human reporters to guarantee a usable record, while poorer litigants are left with defective audio or machine output—widening the justice gap.
  • Reporter exodus: Talented stenographers are leaving, either burned out or underpaid, taking decades of institutional knowledge with them.

Like a home that looks intact from the street but has a sagging foundation, the legal system is still “standing”—but one more storm could bring catastrophic collapse.

5. Rebuilding the Foundation: A Blueprint for Action

The good news is this: foundations can be rebuilt. It requires honesty, effort, and collective will. The profession doesn’t need cosmetic repairs; it needs structural renovation.

Here’s where we start:

a. Reinforce Legal Pillars

Reaffirm and strengthen statutes that require licensed court reporters for proceedings. Loopholes that allow notaries or uncertified “operators” to act in their place must be closed. Rules of evidence must be enforced uniformly—if testimony doesn’t meet hearsay exceptions, it shouldn’t be allowed in just because it was “cheaper.”

b. Reclaim Control of the Record

Court reporters must assert their legal role as the Responsible Charge of the record. This means refusing to sign or certify proceedings they did not cover, demanding proper working conditions, and supporting models that give reporters—not agencies—custody of the transcript.

c. Educate Attorneys and Judges

Attorneys are often unaware that the “markup” they resent isn’t coming from reporters, but from intermediary agencies. Judges sometimes don’t understand the evidentiary consequences of allowing uncertified digital systems. Education campaigns, CLE presentations, and bar association outreach are critical.

d. Modernize, But With Integrity

Technology can enhance—not replace—stenographers. Real-time streaming, transcript search tools, and secure repositories can make reporters more efficient and valuable. The key is that reporters must own the technological infrastructure, not be subsumed by it.

e. Rebuild Community

Reporter isolation has been part of the problem. A unified, strategic community can resist bad legislation, expose misinformation, and present a clear alternative. Movements don’t grow from fear—they grow from shared belief in a better future.

6. A House Worth Rebuilding

The house in the photograph isn’t beyond saving—but it won’t fix itself. It needs new beams, careful work, and the wisdom to reinforce what was once strong.

The court reporting profession stands at a similar crossroads. We can continue patching cracks and hoping for the best, or we can roll up our sleeves and rebuild the foundation intentionally—one statute, one courtroom, one reporter at a time.

Because if the foundation goes, the whole structure of justice goes with 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