For decades, the integrity of the federal court record has rested on the labor of a largely invisible professional class: official court reporters. They sit in courtrooms day after day, capturing every word spoken, resolving ambiguities in real time, editing and proofreading transcripts, and certifying that the final product is a true and accurate reflection of what transpired. Their work underpins appellate review, due process, and the public’s trust in the judiciary.
Yet today, many of those same court reporters find themselves excluded from compensation when their certified work product is sold to the public through federal databases. The system that was meant to modernize access to justice has instead become a case study in quiet exploitation.
The issue traces back to the e-Government Act of 2002, which encouraged federal courts to expand electronic public access to records. To fund this effort, the judiciary relied on the PACER and CM/ECF systems, charging users modest fees for downloading documents. At the time, the judiciary described the fee structure as an experiment—one that would be reviewed to ensure fairness and compliance with statutory limits.
That review never meaningfully occurred.
Over time, PACER fees ballooned far beyond the cost of maintaining the system, generating hundreds of millions of dollars. Lawsuits followed, culminating in a proposed $125 million settlement announced in 2023 to refund users for fees that exceeded lawful cost recovery. The settlement implicitly acknowledged what critics had long argued: PACER had drifted from access facilitation into revenue generation.
But while PACER users may receive refunds, court reporters remain left out of the conversation.
Official court reporters occupy a unique dual role within the federal judiciary. They are employees for purposes of courtroom coverage, but independent contractors when producing transcripts. This distinction matters. Transcript compensation has historically been based on a residual model, not a flat salary. Reporters receive an initial fee for the first delivery of a certified transcript, followed by reduced fees when additional certified copies are ordered by other parties.
This system reflects the reality of the work. Creating a certified transcript is labor-intensive and professionally risky. Reporters assume responsibility for accuracy, formatting, proofreading, and certification. They also carry liability if the record is challenged. Residual compensation recognizes that the reporter’s expertise and work product continue to hold value when reused.
PACER disrupted that model without negotiation.
By inserting itself into the transcript distribution pipeline, the federal judiciary began collecting fees for access to reporters’ certified transcripts—fees that historically would have flowed, at least in part, to the reporter who created the record. The reporter continued to do the work. The judiciary collected the money. The compensation gap became normalized.
This was not the result of a bargained agreement. Court reporters were not offered an alternative compensation structure, nor were they given the ability to opt out of electronic distribution. They were simply told that this was how the system would work going forward.
Compounding the problem is the absence of transparency. Despite repeated calls from the profession, no comprehensive public audit has been released showing how much PACER revenue derives specifically from the sale of certified transcripts produced by court reporters. Without that data, reporters cannot even quantify the income they have effectively lost.
The judiciary, meanwhile, occupies a conflicted position. It administers PACER, benefits financially from its operation, and adjudicates the legal challenges brought against it. That structural tension raises legitimate concerns about accountability, even if no individual actor acts with ill intent.
The human consequences are easier to see.
Federal court reporting has become increasingly difficult to staff. Recruitment pipelines are shrinking. Experienced reporters are leaving the system earlier than expected. Younger reporters, burdened by student debt and rising costs of living, are less willing to accept positions where a significant portion of traditional income has been redirected elsewhere.
This erosion does not just affect reporters. It affects the courts themselves. Delays in transcript production slow appeals. Shortages strain remaining reporters. The quality of the record—something judges and attorneys rely on implicitly—becomes harder to guarantee.
Fixing this problem does not require dismantling PACER or abandoning electronic access. It requires acknowledging a basic principle: the creator of a certified work product should not be excluded from compensation when that product is sold.
Several reforms are both practical and achievable.
First, the judiciary should conduct and publish a detailed audit of PACER revenues attributable to certified transcripts, broken down by court and year. Transparency is a prerequisite to trust.
Second, Congress or the Judicial Conference should establish a statutory or regulatory mechanism to ensure that a portion of transcript-related PACER fees is remitted to the court reporters who created and certified the transcripts. This could mirror the historical residual model in digital form.
Third, court reporters should have representation at the table when electronic access policies are drafted or revised. Decisions about transcript distribution should not be made without the professionals who produce the record.
Finally, any future modernization efforts should be guided by a clear boundary: access to justice must not be financed by uncompensated professional labor.
The PACER settlement addresses one category of harm—the overcharging of users. It does nothing to resolve the parallel harm inflicted on court reporters whose work has been monetized without remuneration. Until that imbalance is corrected, the system remains incomplete.
Justice may no longer be blind, but it should at least be fair. Paying court reporters for the certified records they create would be a meaningful step toward restoring that balance.
Side-by-Side Explainer for Attorneys
Why PACER Refunds Do Not Resolve Court Reporter Compensation
| PACER Refund Issue | Court Reporter Compensation Issue |
|---|---|
| Focuses on PACER users being overcharged for electronic access | Focuses on reporters not being paid for resale of their certified work |
| Settlement refunds fees to attorneys, nonprofits, and public users | No mechanism compensates the reporter who created the transcript |
| Addresses statutory limits on PACER cost recovery | Addresses labor and property interests in certified transcripts |
| Looks backward at excessive fees | Ongoing, prospective loss of residual income |
| Does not change how transcripts are monetized going forward | Requires structural reform to restore reporter compensation |
| Benefits court record consumers | Benefits court record creators |
Bottom line for attorneys:
Even if PACER fees are reduced or refunded, the underlying compensation model for court reporters remains broken. Refunds correct overbilling to users; they do not cure the diversion of transcript-related income away from the professionals responsible for producing the official record.
Publication disclaimer
This commentary reflects the author’s analysis and opinion on federal court record practices and does not allege criminal conduct by any individual. References to PACER and related systems are based on publicly reported information, including court filings and reporting by Bloomberg Law.
STENOIMPERIUM 