Zoom, the Record, and the Reporter – Where Ethics Are Clear and the Law Is Catching Up

Two recent agency inquiries—one from Texas questioning a large national firm’s practice of making reporters the Zoom “host,” another from Minnesota describing an irate attorney who demanded that the reporter both report and record a Zoom deposition—illustrate a growing pressure point in post-pandemic litigation.

The technology is mature; the ethics are settled; but the rules remain a patchwork. The question is no longer can we take depositions remotely—but who controls the platform and the record.

---

The Bright-Line Ethical Rule

The National Court Reporters Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics drew the line almost two decades ago. Advisory Opinion 44 asks:

“Should a court reporter act as both the verbatim reporter and the videographer for the same proceeding?”

The answer: No.

The committee found that “a reporter may not act as both the videographer and the verbatim reporter for the same proceeding” because doing so would “compromise the reporter’s paramount duty to make a full, impartial, and accurate record.”
(NCRA COPE Advisory Opinion 44, 2006)

That rule remains the profession’s north star. The reporter’s singular function is to create the official, certified record. Recording, streaming, or producing the video component is a different profession governed by different rules and responsibilities.

---

Why the Pressure Persists

If the ethics are settled, why are reporters still asked to host or record Zoom? The answer is simple: convenience and cost-cutting.

During the pandemic, many agencies collapsed multiple roles—videographer, host, and reporter—into one for efficiency. Now, as firms try to maintain those margins, the blurred roles remain. Some national vendors’ job confirmations still bury “host duties” in small print, implying that the reporter will admit participants, control screen-share, and even “press record.”

On the ground, that looks like this: the reporter is taking down testimony while monitoring the waiting room, troubleshooting audio, and managing exhibits—all under an email that simply reads “Veritext Virtual” or “Remote Legal proceeding.”

But that “efficiency” introduces an ethical conflict of interest, violates Advisory Opinion 44, and endangers the record itself.

---

Federal Clarity, State Divergence

At the federal level, Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows depositions “by telephone or other remote means” by stipulation or order. The rule, however, says nothing about who hosts or records; it simply authorizes the format.
The ethical boundaries remain unchanged: the reporter reports; the videographer records.

At the state level, the picture is less uniform.

During COVID-19, emergency orders across the country authorized remote oaths and appearances. Afterward, some states made those changes permanent:

• Florida adopted remote-notarization frameworks and remote-oath rules.
• California enacted Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.310 (a)(2), permanently allowing remote depositions and oaths.
• Texas, Illinois, and Minnesota reverted to their pre-pandemic rules, allowing remote proceedings only by stipulation or specific order.
• Massachusetts formally recognized remote depositions but left procedures to counsel and the officer.

Others let emergency authorizations simply expire, creating gaps or ambiguity. The practical result: some states treat remote oath administration as routine, while others treat it as an exception.

---

Where “Recording” Collides With the Official Record

Attorneys who insist on “just recording the Zoom” often misunderstand what that means legally. Zoom’s native recording feature creates an unverified digital file—not a lawful, certified legal video record.

A true legal video record requires a licensed videographer who ensures:

• proper identification of participants,
• on/off-record statements,
• continuous time-stamping, and
• compliance with jurisdictional rules for audiovisual depositions.

When a reporter controls the platform, the reporter inadvertently becomes the de facto videographer, directing what is captured and when. That is exactly why the NCRA forbids dual service.

---

When Being “Host” Is About Protecting the Record—Not Producing It

This is where nuance enters. Many reporters want to be designated as the Zoom host, not to record, but to prevent unauthorized recording and to disable automatic speech-recognition (ASR) bots that threaten confidentiality.

The NCRA’s Guidelines for Professional Practice—Section V, “Reporting a Proceeding Remotely via a Streaming Platform”—acknowledge this limited role:

“To avoid the possibility of unauthorized use of the recording feature … the reporter should be designated as the host whenever possible.”
— NCRA Guidelines for Professional Practice, Section V

Under this provision, being host is permissible when the purpose is custodial: controlling access, locking out AI transcription tools, and protecting the integrity of the record.

So:
✅ You may be host to safeguard the record.
❌ You may not be host to produce or certify a recording.

When reporters are not the host, they often lose the ability to disable recording or remove AI bots such as “Otter.ai,” “Fireflies,” or “Zoom Transcription.” In those cases, if the host refuses to disable those functions, the reporter’s obligation is clear: withdraw from the job. Proceeding under forced recording or ASR attendance violates confidentiality and the Code of Professional Ethics.

Ethically, a reporter who continues in that scenario risks being complicit in creating an unauthorized record—something that could later be used to challenge transcript authenticity.

---

Exhibit Sharing: Staying on the Safe Side

Another gray area arises with exhibits. In remote settings, counsel often share or mark exhibits electronically. Occasionally, a reporter is asked to “screen-share” a document or PDF for identification.

This is allowed—but only if done off the record and at counsel’s direction.

Proper protocol:

“We’re going off the record while I display the exhibit for identification.”
[Share the exhibit.]
“We’re back on the record. Exhibit 3 has been marked for identification.”

This keeps the exhibit process administrative, not testimonial. If exhibit handling continues while testimony is in progress, the reporter is effectively participating in the record’s production, which edges into prohibited dual-role territory.

---

When Dual Roles Cross the Line

Here’s the functional breakdown:

Scenario	Ethics Status	Reasoning
Reporter acts as host solely to control access, disable recording/ASR	✅ Allowed	Protective custodial role
Reporter records the Zoom session	❌ Forbidden	Videography role
Reporter shares exhibits off record at counsel’s request	✅ Allowed	Administrative act
Reporter manages exhibits while testimony continues	⚠️ Risky	Divided attention and role
Reporter proceeds despite active ASR/recording	❌ Forbidden	Compromises confidentiality
Reporter withdraws when host refuses to disable recording/AI	✅ Required	Upholds ethical standard

The dividing line is functional control.

• Custodial control (ensuring integrity) = permitted.
• Production control (creating a recording) = prohibited.

---

Practical Responses for Agencies and Reporters

For the Texas agency that discovered Veritext requiring reporters to “host and monitor Zoom,” the correct written response should cite Advisory Opinion 44 and the Guidelines for Remote Reporting:

“Our reporters cannot perform videographer or recording duties. They may act as host only to protect the integrity of the record by disabling recording and ASR features. If no separate videographer or remote-tech is provided, the assignment cannot proceed.”

For the Minnesota agency faced with an angry attorney demanding a Zoom recording:

“We’re happy to provide the certified stenographic record. If you wish to create an audiovisual record, please hire a legal videographer. Under NCRA ethics, our reporter cannot perform both functions.”

These short, professional responses align perfectly with NCRA standards while preserving client relationships.

---

The Legal Gap: Ethics Ahead of Statute

The underlying challenge is that ethics have outpaced legislation.
Most state civil-procedure codes say little about remote-platform control or AI participation. Few define what constitutes an “official” recording in a virtual setting. The NCRA’s ethics code and the California and Texas licensing regulations are, at this moment, the only concrete guardrails.

Until states modernize their procedural rules to explicitly address host control, digital recording, and ASR transcription, these ethical standards will continue to serve as the profession’s de facto law of the land.

---

Checklist for Remote Assignments

1. Clarify roles in writing. Before the proceeding, confirm who hosts, who records, and who marks exhibits.
2. If you host, use that control defensively. Disable Zoom’s recording, live transcription, and ASR integrations.
3. Announce clearly when going off/on the record. Especially for exhibit sharing.
4. If unauthorized recording or AI attendance occurs, withdraw immediately. Document why.
5. Stay current on state remote-oath rules. Don’t rely on pandemic orders that may have expired.
6. Never act as videographer. If video is requested, a separate professional must handle it.

---

The Bottom Line

Remote technology is here to stay, but the ethics that protect the record have not changed. Reporters can—and should—use host controls to prevent abuse, not to facilitate it.

They may not create a recording, run an ASR feed, or act as both videographer and stenographer. When those lines are crossed, the ethical duty is not to compromise—it’s to walk away.

Until the law catches up, the profession’s integrity depends on each reporter drawing that line firmly, every single time.

---

Key Sources:

• NCRA Committee on Professional Ethics, Advisory Opinion 44 (2006) — Reporter may not serve as both verbatim reporter and videographer.
• NCRA Guidelines for Professional Practice, Section V: Reporting a Proceeding Remotely via a Streaming Platform.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) — Depositions by remote means.
• State civil-procedure updates (California § 2025.310 (a)(2); Florida Remote Online Notarization Act; various 2020-25 rule amendments).
• California Rules of Court Rule 3.1010 — oral depositions by telephone, videoconference, or other remote electronic means.
• State civil-procedure updates:
• Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30 (2025 amendments discussing remote depositions, video-conferencing)

---

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):