What Court Reporters Can (and Cannot) Talk About – Ethics, Boundaries, and Public Perception

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

We live online now. Stories, selfies, side hustles—it’s all out there. But when your day job involves people’s private testimony, how much of your work life belongs on your feed? For court reporters, though, that mix isn’t just tricky—it can cross serious ethical lines. Whether it’s a freelance reporter posting about an interesting deposition or an official reporter sharing courtroom experiences, the question remains: how much is too much?

The Duty of Confidentiality

Court reporters are not just recorders; we are officers of the court. That title carries a fiduciary responsibility to protect the integrity of the record and the privacy of the proceedings we document. Even when a deposition or trial is technically public, our commentary can cross ethical lines if it reveals identifiable information or undermines neutrality.

A simple benchmark: if what’s said could allow someone to identify the case, parties, or witnesses with minimal effort—or if the tone could be perceived as mocking, biased, or disrespectful—it’s safer left unsaid.

It’s Not Just About “Naming Names”

A common misconception is that confidentiality applies only when someone’s name or company is mentioned. But ethics hinge on identifiability and impartiality, not merely names. Sharing “a case today involving a celebrity divorce where the attorney said X” or “a deposition with a doctor from Beverly Hills who…” may seem vague, but Google makes even small details traceable.

Moreover, even if the facts are anonymized, tone and commentary matter. Sarcasm, ridicule, or personal opinion about participants can erode the profession’s reputation for neutrality and professionalism.

The Public vs. Private Record Distinction

Some reporters reason that because court proceedings (outside of sealed, juvenile, or confidential matters) are technically public, talking about them should be permissible. However, public access to a transcript is not the same as a reporter offering unsanctioned commentary about it. The reporter’s duty doesn’t end when the session is over; it extends to preserving the dignity and impartiality of the judicial process long after the record closes.

In depositions, the expectation of privacy is even higher. Though discovery is not open to the public, those transcripts can contain sensitive medical, financial, or personal details. Disseminating that information—or even implying familiarity with it—risks breaching professional obligations and, in some jurisdictions, could raise ethical or contractual violations.

Professional Standards and Public Perception

Organizations such as the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) and various state boards emphasize confidentiality, impartiality, and decorum as pillars of ethical conduct.
NCRA’s Code of Professional Ethics specifically instructs members to “preserve the confidentiality and ensure the security of information, oral or written, entrusted to the Member by any of the parties in a proceeding.”

Even if a comment doesn’t violate a confidentiality clause outright, it can still undermine public trust. Once the audience begins to view court reporters as commentators rather than neutral officers of the record, our credibility suffers. Attorneys may question whether their cases are safe in our hands—or their witnesses safe from public ridicule.

A Modern Dilemma: Storytelling vs. Oversharing

There’s no denying that court reporters have fascinating stories. We witness raw human emotion, high-stakes litigation, and moments of profound truth. It’s natural to want to share insights, lessons, or humor about our work.

The safest approach is education over entertainment:

  • Share general experiences, not specific proceedings.
  • Speak in terms of professional insight (“How to handle fast talkers” or “Dealing with complex medical terminology”) rather than anecdotes about cases.
  • When in doubt, ask: Would I say this if the judge, counsel, or witness were in the room?

The Bottom Line

Court reporters operate at the intersection of law, language, and trust. In today’s content-driven culture, that trust must extend to the digital sphere.
Whether speaking on social media, at conferences, or in casual conversation, the rule of thumb remains timeless: protect the record, protect your reputation.

Because even one careless comment can turn an officer of the court into a commentator—and that’s a line no reporter should ever cross.

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