Petition to the National Court Reporters Association – Request to Deny CEU Approval for Programming that Undermines Stenographic Capture

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

Submitted by Concerned NCRA Members

Introduction

We, the undersigned members of the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), submit this petition to formally object to the approval of continuing education units (CEUs) for vendor-produced programming that advances the premise that capture method is immaterial to the integrity, admissibility, and evidentiary status of the record. This petition is prompted by a pending 2026 CEU webinar series produced by Veritext and similar programming that promotes method equivalence among stenographic reporting, digital recording, and automated speech recognition (ASR).

While continuing education is essential to professional development, CEU approval by NCRA carries institutional legitimacy. That legitimacy should not be extended to programming that conflicts with NCRA’s mission, core values, and ethical foundations—or that conditions members to accept the erosion of stenography as the evidentiary gold standard.

The Core Concern

The unifying thesis of the referenced CEU programming asserts that the strength of the court reporting profession derives primarily from individual professionalism rather than the method of capture. This framing is incompatible with long-established legal principles recognizing that contemporaneous stenographic capture by a sworn, licensed court reporter is what distinguishes an original verbatim record from derivative, reconstructed hearsay.

Stenography is not merely one of several interchangeable tools. It is the method that enables immediate verification, readback, judicial reliance, appellate review, and enforceable chain of custody. No degree of post hoc training, monitoring, or technological augmentation can convert an audio recording or ASR output into the functional equivalent of a stenographic record.

Conflict with NCRA Governing Authority

Approval of CEUs built on method-neutral or method-equivalence premises conflicts with multiple governing principles of NCRA, including:

1. NCRA Mission Statement

NCRA’s mission commits the Association to advancing the profession of stenographic court reporting and captioning and protecting the integrity of the record. CEU approval for programming that minimizes or obscures the legal significance of stenographic capture undermines this mandate rather than advancing it.

2. NCRA Core Values

Such approval is inconsistent with NCRA’s stated core values, including:

  • Professional Excellence, which presupposes mastery of a method designed for evidentiary reliability;
  • Public Trust, which depends on clear, enforceable standards for record creation; and
  • Advocacy, which requires the Association to defend—not dilute—the profession’s unique legal role.

3. NCRA Code of Professional Ethics

The Code of Professional Ethics imposes duties of accuracy, impartiality, independence, and safeguarding the record. These duties assume reporter-controlled, contemporaneous capture. CEU programming that treats capture method as incidental erodes the ethical framework NCRA requires its members to uphold.

The Risk to the Profession

When NCRA approves CEUs for vendor-curated education that reframes displacement as evolution, it signals to courts, attorneys, regulators, and the public that method parity is acceptable. Over time, this narrative weakens statutory protections, evidentiary standards, and the professional standing of stenographic reporters.

CEU approval should not be used to normalize business models that depend on replacing licensed court reporters while simultaneously relying on reporters’ credentials to legitimize that transition.

Our Requests

We respectfully request that NCRA:

  1. Deny CEU approval for any programming that asserts or implies equivalence between stenographic reporting and digital or ASR-based capture methods;
  2. Require CEU content to expressly acknowledge that stenographic capture by a licensed court reporter is the evidentiary gold standard;
  3. Adopt clear CEU review criteria that prohibit approval of education designed to condition members toward acceptance of professional displacement;
  4. Reaffirm publicly NCRA’s commitment to stenography as the method that protects the integrity of the record and access to justice.

Conclusion

This petition is not an objection to education, technology, or ethical discussion. It is an objection to the misuse of NCRA’s CEU authority to legitimize narratives that undermine the profession the Association exists to protect. We submit this petition in good faith, in defense of the record, and in reliance on NCRA’s stated mission and ethical obligations.

Respectfully submitted,

Signatories

(To be appended as a running signature page)

NameCredentialsState

Name:
NCRA Member Number (if applicable):
Credentials (CSR, RPR, RMR, CRR, etc.):
State / Jurisdiction:
Date:

How to Participate: This is a single, unified petition. To add your name, leave a comment below with your full name, credentials (RPR, CSR, RDR, etc.), and state. Comments will be compiled into an official signature page and appended to the petition. Once collected, the petition and signature list will be formally submitted to the NCRA Board of Directors and CEU Review Committee while CEU approval is still pending.

Sign the Petition on Change.org

Clarification: This petition is not about machine stenography versus voice writing. Both are forms of stenographic court reporting, performed by licensed professionals who contemporaneously capture, monitor, and certify the record. This petition draws a clear line between stenographic capture (machine or voice) and method-agnostic recording systems, including digital recording and ASR-first workflows, which rely on post hoc reconstruction rather than real-time professional control of the record.

Celebration or Contradiction – When Corporate CEU’s Collide With the Reality of the Record

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