Court reporters and small agencies: this is not the end — it’s the beginning of transformation. When you step into the fire of immersion, fear fades, energy multiplies, and breakthroughs happen. You are the guardian of truth, and together we are unstoppable. Don’t wait. Reclaim your value, stand tall, and help save the profession today.
Category Archives: Legal Services
Small Agencies in Crisis – Competing Fairly in an Unfair Market
Small, reporter-owned agencies are being squeezed by Big Box firms offering lavish gifts, delayed payment schemes, digital reporters, and AI summaries. Competing on those terms is impossible — and unethical. But survival is still possible. By flipping their business model upside down — paying reporters faster, networking instead of consolidating, and selling ethics instead of perks — small agencies can thrive again.
Agencies Exploit Reporters Twice – Once for Their Labor, Once for Their Marketing
Court reporting agencies profit twice: first from our labor, then by conscripting us as unpaid sales reps. Some agencies do better, but one is too many. Reporters are not brand ambassadors, cookie pushers, or mock jurors. We are officers of the court, and when neutrality is compromised, justice itself is at risk. Agencies must change — or be called out.
“Spin to Win” for Transcripts? Why This Giveaway Likely Violates California Lottery & Professional Standards Laws
Magna’s “Spin to Win” wheel isn’t harmless fun—it’s an illegal lottery in disguise. By tying raffle entries to transcript submissions and page counts, the company recreates the same scheme Shaunise Day’s Steno in the City™ ran in Long Beach without DOJ registration. In California and most states, Prize + Chance + Consideration = lottery. No free entry means no compliance.
The Incontrovertible Record – Why a Stenographer’s Notes Still Reign Supreme
In every courtroom, voices overlap, tempers flare, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Amid the chaos, one thing never wavers: the stenographer’s notes. They are the unshakable record—neutral, permanent, and immune to distortion. Machines may glitch, audio may falter, but the stenographer’s notes never lie. They remain the ultimate safeguard of truth in our justice system.
Saving the Profession Isn’t a Runway Walk, It’s a Battlefield
Saving stenography isn’t a runway walk—it’s a battlefield. Agencies have leveraged legislation to gain ground, and courts now put their names on forms once reserved for reporters. Power circles inside our own profession deflect responsibility, as seen in the Notary Loophole fallout. The truth is simple: reporters must reclaim leadership, defend independence, and fight for the integrity of the record.
AI Transcripts vs. Human Court Reporters & Why the Record Still Needs a Person
Stanford’s data shows ASR makes twice as many errors with Black speakers as white speakers. The NCRA warns of bias, misattribution, and chain-of-custody failures. In trial after trial, I’ve seen judges and attorneys turn back to the human transcript when accuracy matters. Until a machine can raise its right hand and swear to accuracy, the record still belongs to court reporters.
When Recruitment Crosses the Line – Court Reporting Schools Push Back After DRA Event
California court reporting schools are pushing back after the last DRA conference, where a speaker allegedly recruited students directly out of their programs—even inside private Teams accounts. One 200-wpm student on the verge of the CSR was lost. School leaders say enough is enough: associations must protect students from solicitation if they want them in the room.
How Zoom Depositions, Consent Laws, and Competing Recordings Are a Growing Dilemma for Court Reporters
In the age of Zoom depositions, competing recordings raise more than technical concerns — they strike at the integrity of the record. When attorneys attempt to capture their own audio, they risk violating consent laws, breaching confidentiality, and undermining the court reporter’s role. Protecting the official record sometimes means halting proceedings, even when it costs time and money.
Technology and Workplace Efficiency – The Court Reporter’s Competitive Edge
Court reporters ranked technology and workplace efficiency as their #1 priority in the latest NCRA poll (37.2%). From realtime integration to secure tools like Eclipse Boost, technology is not a threat but an amplifier—when it’s reporter-controlled. Efficiency means more accuracy, faster turnaround, less stress, and stronger client loyalty. The future of steno is in our hands.
Why Judges Cannot Rely on AI Captions – The Legal and Ethical Imperative of Certified Realtime
Judges may think AI captions save money, but the law is clear: only a certified court reporter can create the official record. ASR is error-prone, insecure, and unauthorized — and I’ve personally seen judges forced into readback when captions got it wrong. Bridge with Boost offers the lawful, accurate, profession-saving alternative that protects evidentiary integrity, judicial ethics, and access to justice.
The Language of CCP 2093(a) & Why Notaries Are Not Deposition Officers
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2093(a) names notaries and deposition officers as able to administer oaths—but only certified shorthand reporters are authorized to take testimony and certify transcripts. The “notary loophole” misleads attorneys into believing oaths alone make a deposition valid. Without a CSR, the record collapses. Learn why due process demands stenographers—not shortcuts.
Who’s Really Swearing in Your Witness?
Attorneys can stipulate to many things, but not to override law. Only a judge can validate agreements that alter statutory or constitutional requirements. The 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee due process: no person can be deprived of rights without it. When a deposition officer asks parties to “stipulate” to a remote oath, that shortcut risks invalidating the entire proceeding.
Fair Compensation in the Age of Derivative Products – Why Reporters Must Create a New Rate Sheet
Agencies are profiting from condensed transcripts, indexes, concordances, and now AI summaries—often billing attorneys transcript-level rates while paying reporters nothing. This is unjust enrichment. Reporters must reclaim fairness by publishing new rate sheets that define compensation for every derivative product. From condensed pages to AI outputs, the message is clear: if it’s built on the transcript, reporters deserve their share.
AI Summaries, CCR 2474, and the Fight Over Who Owns the Record
AI deposition summaries aren’t innovation—they’re exploitation. Agencies are monetizing transcripts into derivative products without consent or compensation, creating unjust enrichment while undermining the integrity of the record. California’s CCR 2474 wasn’t written with AI in mind, but the principle remains: reporters must not be in the business of interpretation. It’s time for contracts, regulation, and reform to safeguard neutrality, fairness, and trust in the transcript.
Who Owns the Transcript?
AI-generated deposition summaries may look like efficiency, but they’re really exploitation. Agencies are repackaging reporters’ transcripts into derivative products—condensed transcripts, indexes, concordances, now AI summaries—without consent or compensation. This is unjust enrichment. Reporters must protect their work with contracts, while the Court Reporters Board closes loopholes in CCR 2474. The official record is sacred, and AI summaries threaten its integrity.
Parasites with Power – How Toxic Management is Destroying Court Reporting in Superior Courts
Toxic bosses in superior courts aren’t leaders—they’re parasites with power. Court reporters are bullied, gaslit, and punished for human missteps while corruption thrives. Instead of compassion or rehabilitation, reporters are discarded, treated worse than criminals for delays often born of impossible workloads or unforeseen crises. Real reform means accountability, support, and a path back—not destruction of careers that sustain justice.
Busting the Digital “Mythbusters” – Why AI and Recorders Can’t Replace Stenographers
Digital advocates claim transcripts generated from recordings and AI are just as accurate as stenography. But predictive algorithms don’t capture testimony verbatim—they guess. That’s hearsay, not a legal record. Unlike stenographers, digital systems outsource editing, compromise confidentiality, and fail the chain of custody. Justice demands certainty, not predictions. Only stenographers deliver a verbatim, admissible record you can trust in court.
The Moment the Notary Loophole Was Unleashed in a Firestorm
On July 21, 2018, CalDRA President Cheryl Haab led a pivotal town hall in Huntington Beach where Kimberly D’Urso pressed the issue of reporter-free depositions and Ed Howard advanced a flawed interpretation of California law. This “notary loophole” allowed videographers with notary commissions to bypass court reporters—fracturing the chain of oath, taking, and certification, and putting the admissibility of testimony at risk.
Weekly Pay vs. 30-Day Law – What California Reporters Need to Know About Lexitas’s New Policy
California law now requires agencies to pay reporters within 30 days of completing services—no exceptions for invoices, transcripts, or copy orders. Lexitas’s new weekly pay schedule sounds reporter-friendly, but compliance hinges on separating per diems, transcript deadlines, and copy orders. “Pay when paid” is no longer legal. Reporters must stay vigilant and hold agencies accountable.
Major Impacts on Court Reporting if U.S. Adopts a “Voice & Likeness Property Law”
If the U.S. adopts a Denmark-style “Voice & Likeness Property Law,” digital reporting and ASR systems could face insurmountable hurdles. Every participant’s consent — and even royalties — would be required for recordings, making stenographers the clear, risk-free choice. In a world grappling with deepfakes, our ability to capture the record without recording voices positions stenographers as the most reliable safeguard of truth.
Who Really Has the Authority to Swear in Witnesses? The Notary vs. Court Reporter Divide
Who really has the authority to swear in witnesses—court reporters or notaries? It’s not a technicality. The power to administer an oath is what gives testimony its binding force. Court reporters, as officers of the court, carry statutory authority. Notaries don’t. Digital reporters straddle the line, often skipping safeguards entirely. The result? A dangerous fault line threatening the integrity of legal proceedings.
Why Congress Must Hold Hearings on the Integrity of Court Reporting in the Age of Digital Recording and AI
Congress must investigate: Who protects the record when justice is on the line? The integrity of the legal record is at risk. Attorneys report defective transcripts, hidden digital recorders, and AI posing as stenographers. This isn’t just an industry dispute — it threatens due process nationwide. Congress must act. A hearing is urgently needed to expose these practices, enforce responsible charge, and protect the record. Our democracy depends on accurate transcripts.
Digital Reporting, AI, and the Future of Court Reporting – Allegations, Lawsuits, and Industry Implications
Veritext’s reliance on digital recording and AI transcripts is finally facing attorney pushback—and possible lawsuits. For years, I’ve warned that agencies exploit loopholes like “agency certificates” to bypass stenographers. Without a responsible charge statement, the legal record is at risk of fraud and failure. It’s time for attorneys and reporters alike to demand accountability and protect the integrity of the record.
What If the United States Made Your Voice and Likeness Your Property?
What if your voice became your legal property? Denmark’s proposed law could make every voice and likeness owned — with takedowns and royalties for unauthorized use. If the U.S. follows, ASR and digital reporting face huge risks, while stenographers become the gold standard for secure, human-verified transcripts. In a world of deepfakes, stenography is justice’s strongest safeguard.
Why AI “Prediction” Can Never Replace Verbatim Court Reporting
CAT software doesn’t replace court reporters—it’s a tool they control to produce a verbatim, certified record. Digital/AI systems are different: they predict what might have been said, dropping words, mishearing accents, and collapsing overlapping speech. In court, guesses aren’t good enough. Justice requires certainty, and certainty requires stenographers—not algorithms.
Beyond the Hype – Redefining Court Reporting in the Age of AI
Artificial intelligence is changing the conversation in court reporting—but it’s not a substitute for human judgment, ethics, and accountability. The real risk lies in misleading narratives and policy shifts that treat automation as “good enough.” By uniting as professionals and adopting AI on our terms, we can protect the record, strengthen our work, and ensure justice remains built on accuracy.
The Myth of the “Killer Litigator”
The myth of the “killer litigator” makes for great television but poor courtroom strategy. After 20 years reporting every type of trial, I’ve seen the best win not by shouting but by clarity, discipline, and respect. Calm, principled advocacy persuades juries and builds credibility. The loudest voice rarely prevails—credibility, preparation, and respect for the record always do.
How to Be a Court Reporter’s Dream – A Guide for Attorneys and Witnesses
A strong transcript doesn’t happen by accident. Attorneys and witnesses can make a court reporter’s day—and protect their own record—by pacing questions, spelling difficult names, avoiding overlap, and simply showing respect. The reporter is your silent partner in justice. A handshake, a thank you, or a moment of clarity today can safeguard your record tomorrow.
The Knox County Privacy Breach – A Wake-Up Call on Confidentiality and Professional Duty
A hidden microphone at the Knox County courthouse exposed private meetings and cost three officials their careers. Beyond Nebraska, the message is clear: confidentiality is the backbone of justice. Court reporters, attorneys, and judges alike must protect the record, audit technology, and guard against shifting liability. Trust, once lost, is nearly impossible to restore.
Why Transcribing from Electronic Recordings Is Hearsay — and the Stenographic Profession’s Strongest Defense
AI and electronic recordings can’t replace stenographic reporters. Why? Because transcripts created by someone not present are hearsay — and hearsay is inadmissible. Only a sworn reporter assumes Responsible Charge of the record, accountable under law. AI can’t be punished, fined, jailed, or defend its transcript in court. Without accountability, it’s just unverifiable hearsay.
When Robots Win Trophies – What It Means for the Future of Stenography
A robot holding a trophy may symbolize progress, but in the courtroom, it represents a dangerous shortcut. While AI may offer speed, only a human stenographer ensures accuracy, accountability, and justice. When automation wins the spotlight, due process can lose. Let’s not trade trust for tech.
Why Save Steno?
Stenographers aren’t relics—they’re the guardians of the record. In courtrooms where every word matters, only a trained human can ensure accuracy, context, and integrity. When we replace steno with machines, we invite errors, mistrials, and lost justice. This isn’t about resisting technology. It’s about protecting due process. Save steno—because once it’s gone, you won’t realize what you’ve lost until it’s too late.
When the Record Breaks – A Deposition Disaster That Proves Why Humans Beat Machines
During a deposition, an attorney slammed the table in frustration—causing a digital “court reporter” to lose a large portion of the testimony due to equipment failure. Unlike certified stenographers, machines can’t adapt in real time or ensure the integrity of the record. This incident is a stark reminder: when accuracy matters, only a trained, licensed court reporter can truly safeguard the legal record.
When AI Enters the Deposition Room – The Legal and Ethical Minefield of Unauthorized Recordings
Attorneys are increasingly attempting to use AI tools like Fireflies.ai to record and transcribe depositions—without proper authorization. These tools threaten confidentiality, compromise the integrity of the official record, and undermine the role of certified court reporters. Reporters must stand firm: unauthorized recording is not permitted. If challenged, document the exchange, contact your agency, and remember—you are the official record, and your judgment matters.
AI Summaries in Litigation – Efficiency or a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen?
An AI-generated deposition summary missed a crucial medical statement about future surgery, leading an insurance company to undervalue a case—and a jury later awarded millions over policy limits. Now the question is: Who’s liable? The law firm? The AI vendor? Or the court reporting agency that sold the product? As AI floods legal workflows, expect a wave of litigation over errors that never should’ve been automated.
Not Optional – Why Stenographers Are Essential to the Constitution and Your Freedom
Court reporters aren’t just transcribers—they’re constitutional safeguards. Without a certified human creating the record, due process collapses. No accurate transcript means no appeal, no accountability, no justice. Stenographers ensure the truth is preserved, rights are protected, and freedom is upheld. Replacing them with machines doesn’t save money—it erodes democracy. Court reporters are the quiet guardians of liberty. Lose them, and you lose the record that protects us all.
“Digital Gatekeeping: How Facebook Job Boards Are Quietly Controlling Access to Court Reporting Jobs—and Why It May Be Illegal”
Facebook job boards for court reporters are becoming digital gatekeeping machines—run by fellow CSRs who block access to jobs without cause. When licensed professionals are excluded from critical work opportunities by biased moderators, it’s not just unethical—it may be a violation of CRB standards and antitrust laws. It’s time to expose the harm and demand oversight.
When Depositions Had Coffee Breaks – A Court Reporter’s Call to Action
There was a time when depositions had structure, civility, and coffee breaks. Now, reporters face 300-page days with no breaks, no boundaries, and inhuman turnaround times. We didn’t lose this all at once—it slipped away because no one said “no.” It’s time to draw the line. For our health, our quality, and the future of court reporting. We either reclaim our power—or watch it disappear for good.
The Ethical Crossroads of Technology in Law – Why Attorneys Must Defend Human Court Reporters
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to verify the integrity of the record. Yet ASR transcripts, often created without disclosure or certification, are slipping into legal proceedings unchecked. With error rates nearing 30%, no human accountability, and real risks to confidentiality, lawyers must take a stand. Certified human stenographers remain the gold standard. Accept no substitutes—your client’s rights may depend on it.
AI Might Be Cheaper—But It’s Gutting the Court Reporting Pipeline
Courtrooms aren’t podcasts—and AI isn’t ready to replace human court reporters. What’s at stake isn’t just jobs, but an entire pipeline: schools, certification boards, machine makers, and trained professionals. Once that system collapses, it’s gone. If we cut too deep, there will be no one left when AI fails. Choose accuracy. Choose humans. Choose us—while you still can.
The Silent Squeeze! How Insurance Companies and Contracting Are Crippling Court Reporters—and How to Fight Back
Insurance company contracting is quietly destroying the court reporting profession. Illegal in many states but rarely enforced, this practice strips independent reporters of long-time clients, undermines transcript integrity, and centralizes control in the hands of big-box firms. We must educate attorneys, demand legal enforcement, and organize as a profession. This is more than business—it’s about preserving justice, impartiality, and the future of court reporting.
The Real Threat to Stenography Isn’t Technology — It’s a Manufactured Crisis
The stenographic profession isn’t outdated — it’s under attack. A manufactured “shortage” narrative, pushed by corporate interests, aims to replace certified reporters with unregulated digital alternatives. But court reporting is thriving, technologically advanced, and essential to justice. It’s time to expose the fraud, reclaim our narrative, and fight for the integrity of the record — because the truth deserves a skilled human witness.
The Silent Breach – How Attorneys Are Illegally Sharing Court Transcripts in Violation of California Law
Under California Government Code § 69954(d), parties who purchase court transcripts may use them internally or as exhibits but cannot share copies with others. Despite this, many attorneys unlawfully distribute transcripts to opposing firms, undermining court reporters’ earnings and violating legal ethics. Unauthorized sharing risks sanctions, financial penalties, and damages the integrity of litigation. Compliance is essential to uphold fairness and professional responsibility.
The Role of the “Deposition Officer” in Court Reporting
A Deposition Officer is a digital reporter in states like California and Texas, where the title court reporter is reserved for state-certified professionals. They record legal proceedings using digital technology and are referred to as “The Officer” in transcripts. While they perform essential court reporting duties, they operate under different regulations, ensuring compliance with state laws while capturing accurate legal records for depositions and other proceedings.
The Dangers of Relying on AI Notetakers During Depositions
AI notetakers in legal depositions and trials offer convenience, but they come with significant risks. Issues like consent, privacy breaches, data security, and potential inaccuracies can undermine confidentiality and compromise attorney-client privilege. Missteps can lead to unintended disclosures, jeopardizing sensitive information. For these reasons, hiring a certified court reporter remains the safest choice to ensure accuracy, confidentiality, and compliance in legal proceedings, safeguarding the integrity of the record.
The California Supreme Court to Hear Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts: A Pivotal Moment for Court Reporting
Last Wednesday, the California Supreme Court made a significant decision to hear the case of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts, a case that carries substantial implications for the future of court reporting in the state. This lawsuit alleges that several county superior courts—including those in Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Diego, and SantaContinue reading “The California Supreme Court to Hear Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts: A Pivotal Moment for Court Reporting”
The Case Against Electronic Recording: Protecting the Integrity of the Judicial Record
The reliance on electronic recording threatens the accuracy and integrity of court records, undermining the role of certified court reporters. Unlike live reporters, digital recordings can suffer from technical failures, inaudible speech, and misinterpretations, jeopardizing appellate review. The push for electronic recording prioritizes cost-cutting over justice, ignoring the critical need for precise, verbatim transcripts in high-stakes cases such as family law and probate disputes.
The Best Teacher? Your Mistakes.
Mistakes are powerful teachers in court reporting. They highlight weaknesses, build resilience, and improve muscle memory. Instead of fearing errors, students should embrace them as learning opportunities. Keeping a mistake log, seeking feedback, and prioritizing accuracy over speed can accelerate growth. Even seasoned professionals make mistakes, but handling them with professionalism, continuous learning, and technology ensures progress. Every misstep is a stepping stone to mastery.
Has Digital Reporting Crossed the Rubicon in Court Reporting?
Digital reporting is reshaping the court reporting industry, moving from early adoption into the mainstream. AI-driven transcription tools, cost efficiency, and a stenographer shortage drive its growth. However, legal challenges and potential legislative bans pose barriers. As firms adopt hybrid models, traditional stenographers must adapt. The shift is inevitable—where will the industry stand as digital reporting continues its rise?
STENOIMPERIUM 