In nearly every skilled profession, there exists an unspoken understanding: the work itself has a minimum value, and expertise determines how far above that value one can rise. Medicine does not discount a physical exam because a doctor is newly licensed. A licensed electrician does not wire a home for half price because he passed his test last month. And in law, a first-year associate does not bill zero dollars per hour simply because a partner has practiced longer.
Yet within court reporting — a profession built upon precision, certification, and statutory responsibility — a recurring argument continues to surface: that newer reporters should charge less than experienced reporters for the same record.
It is a seductive idea. It sounds fair. It sounds merit-based. And it is economically destructive.
The question is not whether experience matters. It unquestionably does. The question is whether experience should lower the value of the work itself — or raise the value of what can be done beyond it.
The distinction determines whether a profession survives.
The Official Record Has a Minimum Value
A deposition transcript is not a creative product. It is not a luxury good. It is a regulated legal instrument relied upon by courts, appellate panels, insurers, and litigants. The reporter — whether newly certified or decades seasoned — performs the same statutory function: administer the oath and preserve an accurate verbatim record.
The legal system does not recognize “junior accuracy.”
A transcript either is or is not reliable.
Because of this, the baseline act of taking a deposition has an inherent minimum professional value. When the industry signals that a new reporter should charge less simply for being new, the message received by the marketplace is not subtle: the record itself varies in worth depending on who creates it.
Attorneys and agencies do not internalize this as mentorship. They internalize it as pricing elasticity.
And markets behave predictably.
Once a lower price becomes available, it becomes the expected price.
Not for the beginner — for everyone.
The Race to the Bottom Is Not Theoretical
Court reporting has already lived this lesson.
For decades, agencies increasingly searched for lower-cost alternatives: out-of-state production, contracting models, digital recording experiments, and various forms of remote capture marketed as equivalent substitutes. Each shift followed the same justification — cost efficiency — and each exerted downward pressure on the perceived value of the human record maker.
Encouraging new reporters to discount their own work repeats the same economic mechanism from inside the profession.
It reframes the certified reporter not as a regulated officer of the proceeding but as a tiered commodity. And commodities do not hold price floors. They are optimized.
If two reporters can produce the official record and one charges less, procurement logic will not protect seniority. It will reward savings.
The intended goal — helping veterans maintain higher earnings — instead erodes the shared foundation supporting all reporters.
Experience Should Create a Ceiling, Not Fragment the Floor
Where experience properly asserts itself is not in the baseline record, but in what surrounds it.
The modern deposition is rarely a simple exchange of questions and answers. Complex litigation demands services that go far beyond transcription: realtime streaming to multiple parties, daily copy in high-volume trials, technical coordination across remote platforms, rapid turnaround under strict deadlines, advanced exhibit handling, and the ability to manage unpredictable proceedings without interruption.
These are not ceremonial upgrades. They materially affect case strategy.
A trial attorney receiving realtime testimony can adjust cross-examination instantly. Same-day transcripts can reshape settlement decisions overnight. A reporter who can maintain accuracy at speed under pressure saves litigants thousands of dollars in preparation time.
Those abilities are where experience properly commands premium compensation.
They are additive services — not discounted labor.
Under this model, the profession preserves a stable minimum value for the official record while allowing individual skill, efficiency, and technological mastery to create virtually unlimited earning potential above it.
The floor remains intact. The ceiling expands.
Seniority Alone Is Not the Market’s Metric
Another uncomfortable truth follows from this structure: years worked and earnings potential are not always directly proportional.
A reporter who invests five focused years mastering realtime writing, software integration, and litigation workflow may generate higher value than a veteran who chooses to perform only standard copy work. This is not disrespect toward longevity. It is recognition that the market compensates capability, not chronology.
Other professions accept this reality without controversy.
A surgeon specializing in a complex procedure earns more than a general practitioner. A trial attorney skilled in high-stakes litigation bills more than one handling routine matters. Experience contributes to expertise, but expertise — demonstrated in practical utility — determines premium pricing.
Court reporting is no different.
The mistake is attempting to protect experience by discounting newcomers instead of monetizing mastery.
Protecting Students Protects Veterans
Ironically, encouraging lower entry-level rates harms the very reporters it seeks to shield.
Students entering the profession already face steep barriers: training length, equipment costs, certification testing, and skill acquisition that requires years of disciplined practice. If their initial work is priced artificially low, agencies learn to staff routine matters with permanently discounted labor.
Over time, “beginner work” becomes defined not by skill but by price category.
Veterans then find themselves competing not against novices but against a newly established lower market baseline — one the profession itself created.
By contrast, maintaining consistent base rates sends a different message: every certified reporter performs work of equal legal significance. Advancement then occurs through measurable capabilities rather than self-undervaluation.
Students gain sustainability. Veterans retain differentiation.
The Profession Is a Service Economy, Not a Seniority Economy
At its core, court reporting is a service economy governed by reliability and optional enhancements. The baseline service — preserving the record — must remain universally trusted and consistently valued. Enhancements — speed, access, technical integration — justify increased fees.
Confusing these categories destabilizes both.
If the baseline becomes negotiable, the profession becomes interchangeable. If enhancements are properly priced, expertise thrives without undermining entry viability.
The healthiest markets operate this way. They protect minimum competence while rewarding exceptional performance.
Court reporting need not invent a new model. It need only recognize the one already proven elsewhere.
The Choice Facing the Profession
The debate over whether new reporters should charge less is not about courtesy to veterans or encouragement of students. It is about economic structure.
One model fragments the profession into pricing tiers based on tenure and invites the market to select the cheapest legally acceptable option. The other establishes a shared professional floor and allows skill to create competitive advantage above it.
One shrinks the profession slowly.
The other strengthens it collectively.
Experience deserves respect — and compensation — but not at the cost of redefining the value of the official record itself.
The record has a minimum worth because the justice system depends on it. What a reporter can build on top of that worth is where careers are made.
Protect the floor. Expand the ceiling.
The future of the profession depends on understanding the difference.
Disclaimer
This article reflects industry analysis and professional opinion intended for discussion within the legal services community. It does not reference any individual’s motives, character, or conduct, nor does it constitute legal advice or a statement of regulatory policy. Readers should consult applicable statutes, rules, and professional boards for authoritative guidance.
STENOIMPERIUM 
Hi, I just have to reply to your article. A reporter passes the Csr and they deserve to be paid with other people are paid. I always felt that we give ourselves a raise by writing cleaner and therefore less time spent editing it and then you perfect your skills and then you can charge for real time and you get your roughs out really quickly and expedites are a breeze because you wrote cleanly. That is how we give ourselves raises. I agree, we should not penalize a new reporter. They are hardly making any per page since they’re getting used to being a reporter and honing their skills. Their time will come. But we should not charge less because someone is a new reporter. I dictated this and I’m not gonna proofread it. Hope it came across OK. I have just always been of that belief. If I spend time preparing for something and then have a clean record then I gave myself a little raise because it will prove itself in the back end. Thanks for listening. Tara.
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike