Vendors Are Not Officers of the Court

How Agency “Company Certificates” Undermine the Legal Record

For more than a century, the creation of the legal record has been governed by a simple and deliberate structure. A court reporter—licensed, neutral, and present for the proceeding—administers the oath, captures the testimony, and certifies that the resulting transcript is a true and accurate record. That responsibility is personal, professional, and statutory.

Court reporting agencies have never occupied that role.

Agencies schedule proceedings, process invoices, and provide customer service. They do not attend depositions. They do not administer oaths. They do not capture testimony. They do not hold shorthand notes. And they bear no legal responsibility for the accuracy or admissibility of the record. Their function is administrative, not judicial.

Yet a growing practice among large national agencies threatens to blur that line. In an increasing number of deposition transcripts, agencies are attaching corporate “company certificates”—documents in which the company itself purports to certify the transcript’s accuracy, completeness, and regulatory compliance.

This is not a modernization of court reporting. It is a misrepresentation of authority.

The Legal Role Is Not Ambiguous

In California, the law is explicit. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.010 through 2025.620, along with the Business and Professions Code governing Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs), establish who may lawfully create and certify deposition transcripts intended for court use.

That authority rests with the licensed court reporter.

A corporation cannot administer an oath.
A corporation cannot take shorthand notes.
A corporation cannot certify a transcript.

No statute confers record-creating authority on an agency. No regulation allows an agency to substitute its own certification for that of a licensed reporter. And no amount of branding changes that reality.

Digital Recording Has Created an Opening—and Agencies Are Exploiting It

The rise of digital recording has introduced a procedural vulnerability that some agencies are now exploiting.

In many depositions, the proceeding is recorded digitally by a “digital reporter” or recording technician—often a notary public—who presses record and administers the oath. The audio is later transcribed by a separate transcriptionist. No stenographic court reporter is present. No shorthand notes are taken. No CSR certifies the transcript.

Under California law, such transcripts are not equivalent to CSR-produced transcripts for court use.

Yet in some of the transcripts circulating among court reporters, the absence of a CSR is masked by a stack of paperwork:

• A notary certificate from the digital reporter stating the testimony was sworn and recorded;
• A transcriber’s certificate from a non-CSR transcriptionist stating the transcript was prepared from audio;
• And finally, a company certificate from the agency asserting that the transcript is accurate, complete, and compliant with “all federal and state regulations governing court reporting services.”

This layering does not cure the defect. It conceals it.

Certification Is Not a Cosmetic Exercise

Certification is not a marketing statement. It is a legal attestation tied to licensure and accountability.

When a licensed court reporter certifies a transcript, that certification carries enforceable obligations. The reporter is subject to discipline, license suspension, or revocation for inaccuracies, misconduct, or violations of law. That accountability is the foundation of trust in the record.

An agency certificate carries none of that weight.

A corporation cannot be disciplined by the Court Reporters Board for errors in a transcript it did not create. It cannot lose a license it does not hold. And it cannot substitute internal policies for statutory compliance.

To suggest otherwise is misleading to attorneys, courts, and litigants.

The Problem Is Not Silence or Stipulation

Some agencies attempt to justify these practices by pointing to deposition notices that state, “absent an objection,” the proceeding may be recorded digitally if a stenographer is unavailable. Others assert that attorneys may stipulate to waive statutory requirements.

That argument misunderstands the law.

Attorneys may stipulate to procedural matters within their authority. They cannot stipulate away statutory protections designed to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process without court approval. Admissibility is not determined by vendor language in a notice. It is determined by judges applying the law.

Silence is not consent to illegality.

Real Consequences in the Courtroom

These issues are not theoretical. According to multiple reporters, California courts have already refused to admit deposition transcripts that were recorded digitally and transcribed by non-CSRs, even when accompanied by agency documentation.

The reasoning is straightforward: the transcripts did not comply with California law.

For litigants, the consequences can be severe. A deposition transcript relied upon in discovery may later be excluded at summary judgment or trial. Months of strategy, briefing, and expense can unravel because the record itself is defective.

For attorneys, the risk is professional. Reliance on an inadmissible transcript invites malpractice exposure. For courts, it threatens the integrity of the evidentiary process.

The Ethical Dimension – Independence and Control

The agency certificate also raises ethical concerns about independence.

In some cases, the agency employs the digital reporter, employs the transcriptionist, controls the technology, sets the pricing, and then certifies the transcript under its own name. In some agencies, attorneys sit on corporate boards while simultaneously using the agency’s services.

Court reporters are prohibited from having a financial interest in the outcome of litigation. Corporations are not bound by the same ethical constraints. When agencies insert themselves into certification, they blur the distinction between neutral record creation and commercial litigation support.

That is precisely the distinction the law was designed to preserve.

Agencies Are Vendors—Nothing More

None of this is an indictment of scheduling, billing, or customer service. Agencies play a legitimate role in facilitating litigation logistics. But that role ends at administration.

The legal record is created by a court reporter or it is not created lawfully at all.

Attaching a company certificate does not transform transcription into court reporting. It does not confer authority retroactively. And it does not insulate a defective transcript from judicial scrutiny.

A Regulatory Question That Cannot Be Avoided

For regulators, the issue is stark.

If agencies are permitted to certify transcripts they did not create, then licensure becomes meaningless. The statutory scheme collapses. And the protections embedded in California’s reporting laws are rendered optional.

That outcome is incompatible with due process.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments exist to prevent exactly this kind of informal erosion of legal safeguards—where economic convenience displaces statutory compliance, and private entities redefine public obligations without legislative or judicial approval.

The Record Still Belongs to the Reporter—or It Fails

The deposition transcript is not a product. It is a legal instrument.

Only a licensed court reporter can create it. Only a licensed court reporter can certify it. And only a transcript produced in compliance with law is guaranteed to be accepted in court.

Agencies may schedule the proceeding. They may bill for it. They may transmit the finished transcript.

But they are not the record.

And they never will be.

---

---

Sidebar for Attorneys

Why an Agency Certificate Does Not Cure an Invalid Transcript

Short answer: Because certification authority is statutory, not contractual.

Here is what attorneys should know:

1. Certification follows licensure
Only individuals licensed under state law (e.g., California CSRs) have authority to certify deposition transcripts for court use. Corporations do not hold licenses and cannot certify on behalf of others.

2. Multiple certificates do not equal compliance
A notary certificate + a transcriber certificate + an agency certificate does not substitute for a CSR certification where the law requires one.

3. “Absent an objection” does not legalize a defective record
Failure to object at the deposition does not waive statutory requirements for admissibility. Judges decide what comes into evidence—not vendors.

4. Agency assurances are not binding on courts
An agency’s statement that it “complies with all federal and state regulations” is not determinative. Courts look to how the record was actually created.

5. Risk shifts to counsel
If a transcript is excluded because it was not lawfully produced, the risk does not fall on the agency. It falls on the party who relied on it.

Best practice:
If the transcript matters, confirm who took the record, who certified it, and whether that certification satisfies the governing statute.

---

Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed reflect analysis of publicly available materials, statutory provisions, and reported practices. No factual determinations are made regarding any specific proceeding or entity, and readers are encouraged to consult applicable statutes, court rules, and qualified legal counsel regarding admissibility and compliance issues.