When “Sustainability” Collides With the Law: How One Complaint Forced a Course Correction at Esquire

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

“Staying Aligned & Ahead”—Or Correcting a Violation After the Fact?

In October 2025, Esquire Deposition Solutions published what it characterized as a routine operational update. Framed as an environmentally responsible initiative, the company announced that electronic transcripts would become the default “original,” with sealed paper originals produced only upon request. For California court reporters, the language should have triggered immediate concern.

Under California law, the handling of original deposition transcripts is not a matter of corporate preference or sustainability branding. It is governed by statute. And what Esquire described as an internal process change directly conflicted with longstanding legal requirements.

The matter did not resolve itself quietly. It ended with a formal investigation by the California Court Reporters Board (CRB), a written finding that Esquire’s October policy violated California law, and a forced course correction that was later framed publicly as compliance with “recent guidelines”—guidelines that did not, in fact, exist.

What the Law Actually Requires

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.550(a) requires the deposition officer to seal the original transcript and retain it as the official record of the deposition. The statute does not permit substitution of an electronic file as the default original. It does not allow agencies to redefine “original” based on internal workflow preferences. And it does not condition production of the sealed paper original on client request.

This requirement has existed for many years. It is not new. It was not recently clarified. And it has never been optional.

In addition, Business and Professions Code section 8051(a)(3) governs the operation of non–shorthand reporting corporations doing business in California. As a condition of registration, those entities must agree to abide by all laws, regulations, and standards of practice applicable to shorthand reporting services in the state.

Together, these provisions impose a clear obligation: agencies operating in California must handle original transcripts in strict accordance with California law, regardless of how those agencies operate elsewhere.

The October 2025 Policy Announcement

Despite this legal framework, Esquire’s October 2025 Connection newsletter stated:

“Electronic transcripts will serve as the default standard. A sealed paper original will only be produced and shipped if a client has a standing preference on file or makes a specific request.”

In California, that statement is not merely inaccurate—it describes conduct that is unlawful.

The issue was not semantic. It was structural. By declaring an electronic transcript to be the default “original,” Esquire asserted a corporate authority that California law does not grant.

A Formal Complaint and an Official Finding

Rather than assuming the issue would resolve internally, California court reporter Kim Kuziora filed a formal complaint with the CRB. The complaint alleged violations of both the Code of Civil Procedure and the Business and Professions Code arising from Esquire’s October newsletter.

The CRB investigated.

In a letter dated January 30, 2026, the Board confirmed that it had contacted Esquire regarding the October 2025 edition of Esquire Connection and specifically advised the company that the described practice would violate CCP section 2025.550(a) and Business and Professions Code section 8051(a)(3). The Board further noted that Esquire subsequently issued an update in its January 2026 newsletter reflecting compliance with CCP section 2025.550(a), after which the Board closed the complaint CRB Esquire complaint response.

This sequence matters. The correction did not precede the investigation. It followed it.

Reframing Compliance as “Recent Guidelines”

In January 2026—after the complaint had been filed and after the CRB contacted Esquire—the company published a “California Update” in its newsletter stating:

“Recent guidelines from the Court Reporters Board of California confirm that all court reporting firms in California must provide a sealed original paper transcript for depositions conducted under the California Code of Civil Procedure, in accordance with section 2025.550(a).”

This framing is misleading.

There were no “recent guidelines.” There was no new interpretation. There was no change in the law. What occurred was regulatory enforcement of an existing statutory requirement after a reported violation.

By characterizing the correction as a response to “recent guidelines,” Esquire obscured the reality that its October policy conflicted with long-standing California law and was changed only after regulatory intervention.

Why This Is Not a Minor Paperwork Dispute

Some may view this episode as an administrative misunderstanding that ended harmlessly. That view ignores who bears the legal risk.

In California, court reporters act as deposition officers. Their names appear on the certificate. Their license is tied to the integrity of the record. When agencies mishandle original transcripts, it is individual CSRs—not corporations—who face potential discipline.

Regulatory history makes this clear. “Agency policy” is not a defense to violations of transcript handling requirements. Reporters can be held accountable for participating in unlawful practices even when those practices are imposed by an employer or contracting firm.

If Esquire had continued operating under its October policy, California reporters working under that system would have been exposed to regulatory risk through no fault of their own.

The Compliance Breakdown

Equally concerning is how the October policy was approved in the first place.

California requires reporting firms to designate a Reporter in Charge (RIC) responsible for compliance with state law. The RIC’s role exists to prevent exactly this scenario: national workflow changes that conflict with California-specific legal obligations.

Yet the October policy was drafted, approved, and disseminated without apparent intervention.

That raises unavoidable questions. Was the RIC unaware of CCP 2025.550(a)? Was compliance overridden in favor of operational efficiency? Or was California law simply not considered at the decision-making stage?

Regardless of the explanation, the outcome was the same: a published policy that violated state law.

Why the Correction Does Not End the Conversation

Esquire ultimately corrected course. The CRB closed the complaint. Sealed paper originals continue to be produced.

But compliance achieved only after enforcement is not a reassuring standard—particularly in a profession where individual licensees carry the risk.

The more troubling issue is that, absent a complaint, the policy might have remained in effect. Nothing in the October newsletter suggested uncertainty or a pilot program. It was presented as a settled change.

That reality underscores a broader problem within the court reporting industry: the increasing centralization of decision-making at large firms that operate across multiple jurisdictions with very different legal frameworks.

California is not interchangeable with other states. Its shorthand reporting laws are detailed, prescriptive, and enforced. National uniformity does not excuse local noncompliance.

What California CSRs Should Take From This

The lesson is not merely historical. It is practical.

Do reporters know—affirmatively—how their agencies handle original transcripts? Do they have written confirmation that those practices comply with California law? Or do they assume compliance based on brand recognition or longevity in the market?

Esquire has operated in California for years. Yet the CRB confirmed that it published a policy that violated clear statutory requirements.

Assumption is not protection.

California CSRs must understand the laws governing their license and must verify that the firms they work with comply with those laws. Silence, convenience, or trust does not shift liability.

A Matter of Professional Survival

This episode is not about sustainability initiatives or newsletter wording. It is about who controls the record, who bears legal responsibility, and how easily statutory requirements can be sidelined by corporate process changes.

The law worked in this case because one reporter acted. The CRB enforced existing statutes. The violation was corrected.

But the profession cannot rely on after-the-fact enforcement as a safeguard.

If court reporting is to remain a licensed, regulated profession in California, compliance must be proactive, not reactive—and transparency must replace revisionist explanations once regulators intervene.

The sealed original transcript is not a relic. It is a legal requirement. And when firms forget that, it is the individual reporter who pays the price.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court reporters and firms should consult the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Business and Professions Code, and the Court Reporters Board of California, or seek qualified legal counsel, regarding compliance obligations and professional responsibility.

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