STENOIMPERIUM

It’s Not Every Day You Get a Professional Athlete on Your Jury Panel

When most people think of jury duty, they probably picture a day spent in a stuffy courthouse, waiting to be called in for a case that may not even affect them. Jury duty is often seen as a civic duty that can be inconvenient, but it’s a responsibility that keeps the justice system functioning. However, every once in a while, an unlikely twist can turn a standard trial into something more memorable. This time, that twist came in the form of an NFL player: Brandon Aubrey, the placekicker for the Dallas Cowboys.

Aubrey, a relatively new face in the NFL, recently made headlines not for his athletic prowess but for fulfilling his civic duty in a very public way. The Dallas Cowboys kicker missed a practice session, with reports emerging that his absence was due to jury duty. While professional athletes missing practice isn’t exactly newsworthy, Aubrey’s situation was a bit different. He was on a jury panel, participating in a trial that could span multiple days.

For most people, missing a workday for jury duty is already a hassle. But for someone like Aubrey, who’s part of a high-profile team with an incredibly packed schedule, it meant juggling the responsibilities of professional sports with the duties of citizenship. The situation brought to light how the lives of public figures can be intersected by everyday obligations like jury duty — obligations that, no matter your career, you can’t simply skip out on.

Imagine being the defendant in a case and finding out one of the jurors is a professional athlete. It’s hard not to wonder how the dynamics of the courtroom might change with someone like Aubrey in the room. With his fame, his athletic career, and the recognition that follows, it’s possible that his presence could alter the tone of the trial. For Aubrey, though, it was just another day in the life of fulfilling his civic duty. His situation highlights how jury duty can impact people from all walks of life, even those with schedules that demand almost constant attention.

The timing of Aubrey’s jury duty also posed a unique challenge. As a professional athlete, Aubrey is no stranger to pressure, especially with the Cowboys’ postseason hopes on the line. Missing practice during a crucial time of the season isn’t ideal for any player, but Aubrey handled the situation with a good attitude, acknowledging the importance of fulfilling his legal obligations.

Ultimately, Aubrey was expected to miss more practices as the trial continued, though his team and coaching staff were supportive of his involvement. It was a reminder that no one, not even an NFL kicker, is exempt from the call of duty.

For those sitting on a jury, it can be an inconvenient interruption to daily life, but for someone like Aubrey, it also serves as a reminder that regardless of how famous or busy you are, everyone plays a role in ensuring justice is served. Jury duty isn’t just for the average citizen; it’s an equalizer in the justice system, one that unites people from all professions and walks of life in the pursuit of fairness.

So, the next time you find yourself summoned for jury duty, just remember — you might not be the only one sitting there. You could be alongside a famous athlete or another public figure, each of you doing your part to keep the wheels of justice turning. Who knows? Your panel might just include someone whose day job is to kick game-winning field goals.

The court reporting industry, while predominantly female, faces significant gender and women’s rights challenges that mirror broader societal issues. Despite women comprising approximately 89% of court reporters, they encounter systemic biases, wage disparities, and underrepresentation in leadership roles. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensuring equity and progress within the profession.

Historical Context and Gender Dynamics

Historically, court reporting was male-dominated. Over time, it transitioned to a predominantly female profession, yet this shift did not eliminate gender-based challenges. Women in court reporting often face misconceptions about their roles and capabilities, leading to undervaluation of their work. For instance, despite their critical function in the legal system, court reporters frequently contend with stereotypes that diminish their professional standing.

Challenges Faced by Women in Court Reporting

1. Wage Disparities and Economic Inequality Despite their majority presence, female court reporters often experience wage disparities. Factors contributing to this include undervaluation of “women’s work” and limited opportunities for advancement. The perception that court reporting is a lesser-skilled profession can lead to lower compensation, reflecting broader societal biases that devalue roles predominantly occupied by women.
2. Underrepresentation in Leadership Positions While women dominate the field numerically, they are underrepresented in leadership and decision-making roles within the industry. This disparity mirrors trends in other sectors, where women, despite their numbers, hold fewer positions of power and influence. The lack of female representation in leadership can perpetuate policies and practices that do not adequately address the unique challenges faced by women in the profession.
3. Gender Bias and Stereotyping Female court reporters often confront gender biases and stereotypes that question their professionalism and competence. These biases can manifest in various ways, from assumptions about their technical abilities to challenges in being taken seriously in male-dominated legal settings. Such prejudices not only affect individual careers but also reinforce systemic barriers to equality within the profession.

Pathways to Progress

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach:

1. Policy Reforms and Advocacy Professional organizations, such as the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), must advocate for policies that promote fair compensation, equitable opportunities, and recognition of the profession’s importance. This includes lobbying for standardized wage practices and creating platforms for women to ascend to leadership roles.
2. Educational Initiatives and Awareness Programs Implementing educational programs that challenge existing stereotypes and biases is essential. Workshops and training sessions can raise awareness about the value of court reporting and the critical role women play in the legal system. By educating both legal professionals and the public, these initiatives can help shift perceptions and foster greater respect for the profession.
3. Mentorship and Support Networks Establishing mentorship programs can provide female court reporters with guidance, support, and opportunities for professional development. Experienced mentors can help navigate workplace challenges, advocate for equitable treatment, and empower the next generation of women in the field. Support networks also offer a platform for collective action and solidarity, amplifying women’s voices within the industry.
4. Encouraging Male Allyship While the profession is predominantly female, engaging male allies is crucial in challenging and changing the systemic biases that exist. Encouraging more men to enter the field can help balance gender dynamics and dispel stereotypes. Male colleagues can also play a pivotal role in advocating for gender equity and supporting initiatives aimed at empowering women within the profession.

Conclusion

The court reporting industry stands at a crossroads, with the potential to lead by example in addressing gender and women’s rights issues. By confronting wage disparities, promoting women into leadership roles, challenging gender biases, and fostering inclusive support networks, the profession can pave the way for a more equitable future. The state of women in court reporting is a reflection of broader societal dynamics, and proactive measures within the industry can contribute significantly to the advancement of women’s rights and equality at large.

Court reporters play a crucial role in the legal system, ensuring that every word spoken in depositions, trials, and hearings is accurately recorded. Their work is fundamental to justice, yet many find themselves struggling financially, not because of a lack of skill or dedication, but due to exploitative practices by court reporting agencies. These agencies, which act as middlemen between court reporters and law firms, often manipulate pay structures, impose unfair fees, and withhold essential work, leaving many hardworking professionals underpaid and overworked.

The Exploitation Begins: Unfair Pay Structures

Court reporters are typically classified as independent contractors rather than employees, which means they receive no benefits, no job security, and must cover their own expenses. Despite this classification, many agencies control every aspect of a reporter’s work, from scheduling to rate setting, creating a power imbalance that allows for significant exploitation.

One of the primary ways agencies take advantage of court reporters is by paying them only for transcripts and not for the time spent in proceedings. A court reporter might sit through an eight-hour deposition, but if the attorney chooses not to order a transcript, the reporter often earns nothing. This practice results in long hours of unpaid labor, an arrangement that disproportionately affects newer reporters who lack the connections to secure high-volume, well-paying jobs.

Additionally, agencies often take an enormous cut of transcript fees. While a law firm may pay several dollars per page for a transcript, the reporter’s share of that payment is often shockingly low. Some agencies claim as much as 50% or more of the fees, leaving the reporter with a fraction of what they actually earned through their labor. Agencies also don’t share with reporters any part of exhibit fees or add-ons, such as a word concordance and condensed, and other fees.

Hidden Fees and Unfair Costs

To add insult to injury, many agencies impose hidden fees on court reporters, further reducing their already meager earnings. These fees come in various forms, including:

• Administrative Fees: Some agencies charge court reporters for basic services such as transcript storage or document processing, even though these should be standard operational costs covered by the agency itself.
• Software and Equipment Costs: Court reporters must provide their own steno machines, computers, and specialized software, which can cost thousands of dollars. Many agencies, however, demand that reporters use specific (often expensive) software and refuse to reimburse any of these costs.
• Transcript Copy Sales: In many cases, agencies resell transcripts to multiple parties, but do not share these additional earnings with the reporter. A transcript that a court reporter was paid for once may be sold multiple times at full price, yet the reporter sees none of that extra revenue.
• Scoping and Proofreading Costs: Court reporters must hire their own subcontractors who provide scoping and proofreading services. Sometimes agencies use their own in-house proofreaders and pass the cost onto the court reporters.

The Threat of Blacklisting

Court reporting agencies maintain tight control over the industry, and one of their most effective tools for silencing dissent is the threat of blacklisting. Reporters who question unfair pay, demand better working conditions, or refuse to accept exploitative contracts often find themselves suddenly without work. Agencies may label them as “difficult” and quietly ensure they receive fewer job assignments or none at all.

This practice keeps many reporters in line, fearful that speaking out will cost them their livelihoods. Because agencies control the vast majority of legal work opportunities, being blacklisted by even one major player can mean months without income. This power dynamic makes it extremely difficult for reporters to push back against unfair practices or advocate for better conditions.

Delays in Payment

Another common tactic agencies use to take advantage of court reporters is delaying payment. Many court reporters wait weeks or even months or years to receive money they earned, making it difficult to manage personal finances. Some agencies operate on a “pay when paid” model, meaning that reporters don’t get paid until the agency receives money from the law firm or client. This can lead to financial instability, especially for independent contractors who rely on timely payments to cover their expenses.

In some cases, agencies will even use delaying tactics to pressure reporters into accepting lower rates. If a reporter complains about slow payment, the agency may suggest they take a pay cut in exchange for faster processing, effectively coercing them into accepting unfair wages in desperation.

Lack of Legal Protections

Despite being integral to the legal system, court reporters have little legal recourse when they are exploited by agencies. Labor laws often do not protect independent contractors in the same way they protect traditional employees, leaving reporters with few options to challenge unfair treatment.

Attempts to unionize or collectively bargain are often crushed before they gain traction. Agencies exploit the fact that reporters work in isolation, making it difficult to organize effectively. Furthermore, legal action against agencies is costly and time-consuming, making it an impractical option for most reporters who are already struggling financially.

How Agencies Get Away With It

The primary reason court reporting agencies continue to exploit reporters with impunity is the lack of regulation in the industry. Unlike salaried employees, court reporters do not have the protection of minimum wage laws, overtime pay, or benefits. Agencies use this lack of oversight to maximize their profits while minimizing costs, creating an environment where they hold all the power.

Additionally, the complexity of court reporting work means that most outsiders—including attorneys and clients—do not fully understand the financial struggles reporters face. This ignorance allows agencies to continue their exploitative practices without pushback from those who use their services.

What Can Be Done?

While the current situation is bleak, there are steps that can be taken to fight back against exploitative agencies:

1. Advocate for Regulation: Stronger labor laws protecting independent contractors in the legal field could help prevent many of these abuses. Legislative efforts should focus on ensuring fair pay, timely payments, and greater transparency in transcript sales.
2. Transparency in Fee Structures: Agencies should be required to disclose exactly how much of the transcript fee goes to the reporter versus the agency itself. This would allow reporters to make more informed decisions about which agencies to work with.
3. Unionization Efforts: While difficult, collective bargaining among court reporters could help push back against unfair practices. Strength in numbers could allow reporters to demand better rates and working conditions.
4. Direct Contracting: More court reporters should consider working directly with law firms instead of relying on agencies. By cutting out the middleman, reporters could retain more of their earnings and have greater control over their work.
5. Educating Attorneys and Clients: Many lawyers and clients are unaware of how little court reporters are paid for their work. Educating them about these issues could encourage them to demand fairer payment structures from agencies.

Conclusion

Court reporting agencies have created a system where they profit immensely off the labor of hardworking reporters while leaving those same reporters struggling to make ends meet. Through unfair pay structures, hidden fees, blacklisting, delayed payments, and a lack of legal protections, agencies have built an exploitative business model that continues largely unchecked.

However, change is possible. By pushing for better regulations, increasing industry transparency, and encouraging collective action among court reporters, the industry can move toward a fairer and more sustainable future. The people who document the words of justice deserve to be treated with fairness and respect—not as disposable workers whose labor is undervalued and taken for granted.

Introduction

Court reporting is a critical component of the legal system, providing accurate transcripts of legal proceedings, depositions, and other events that require official documentation. While some court reporters are employed full-time by courthouses, many professionals in this field choose to work as freelancers. Freelancing as a court reporter offers flexibility, independence, and the potential for high earnings, making it an attractive career option for many.

This article explores what it means to be a freelance court reporter, the different types of jobs available, earning potential, and tips on finding work in this competitive yet rewarding field.

---

What is a Freelance Court Reporter?

A freelance court reporter is an independent contractor who provides court reporting services on a per-assignment basis rather than working under a salaried position in a courthouse. Unlike full-time court reporters who typically work a structured 40-hour week, freelancers have the flexibility to set their schedules, choose their assignments, and decide how much they want to work.

While traditional court reporters employed by courthouses may have additional duties such as research and procedural administrative tasks, freelancers focus primarily on recording, transcribing, and delivering official transcripts of proceedings. They also have the opportunity to take on multiple clients, diversifying their work experience and income sources.

---

The Advantages of Freelancing in Court Reporting

Choosing to freelance as a court reporter comes with a variety of benefits:

1. Flexible Schedule: Freelancers control their workload and can decide when and where they want to work.
2. Higher Earning Potential: Because freelancers are paid per job, those who take on more assignments can significantly increase their income.
3. Diverse Work Opportunities: Freelance court reporters can work in various settings, broadening their experience beyond courtroom proceedings.
4. Entrepreneurial Independence: Freelancers operate like business owners, allowing them to cultivate their own client base and negotiate rates.

However, freelancing also comes with challenges, such as unpredictable workloads, the need to manage one’s own business operations, and the requirement to secure health insurance and retirement savings independently.

---

Types of Freelance Court Reporting Jobs

Freelance court reporters are not limited to courtrooms; they can work in various settings, including:

1. Depositions

A large portion of freelance court reporting work involves depositions—formal sworn testimonies taken before a trial. Lawyers hire court reporters to transcribe these sessions for official records.

2. Municipal Hearings

Local government agencies conduct hearings on zoning laws, licensing issues, and other matters, requiring official documentation by court reporters.

3. Board Meetings

Corporations, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies often require detailed records of board meetings, making this another potential source of work for freelancers.

4. Arbitrations

Alternative dispute resolution settings such as arbitration hearings also require official transcripts, providing another lucrative opportunity for freelancers.

5. Captioning for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Freelance court reporters with specialized training can work in broadcast captioning, live-event captioning, or CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation) services, ensuring accessibility for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.

---

Earning Potential for Freelance Court Reporters

One of the most appealing aspects of freelancing as a court reporter is the potential for high earnings. According to the latest data, freelance court reporters can earn:

• Entry-Level (0-2 years experience): $40,000 – $100,000 per year
• Mid-Level (3-5 years experience): $70,000 – $150,000 per year
• Experienced (5+ years experience): $300,000 or more per year

Freelancers’ income depends on several factors, including workload, location, and specialization. For example, those providing CART services or working in high-demand legal markets can command higher rates. Additionally, freelancers can earn extra income by selling copies of their transcripts to attorneys and other interested parties.

---

Finding Work as a Freelance Court Reporter

Securing consistent work as a freelance court reporter requires a proactive approach. Here are some effective strategies to land assignments:

1. Join a Court Reporting Agency

Many agencies specialize in connecting freelance court reporters with legal professionals who need transcription services. Signing up with multiple agencies can increase job opportunities.

2. Utilize Online Job Platforms

Websites such as CoverCrow, and industry-specific job boards on Facebook list freelance court reporting jobs. 

3. Network with Legal Professionals

Building relationships with other reporters, agencies, lawyers, paralegals, and legal secretaries can lead to direct work opportunities. Attending legal industry events, joining professional associations, and leveraging social media can all help expand your professional network.

4. Market Your Services Independently

Creating a personal website and showcasing your expertise can help attract clients. Offering trial discounts, maintaining an active presence on legal forums, and sending cold emails to law firms can also be effective ways to generate business.

5. Stay Up-to-Date with Industry Certifications

Having certifications such as the NCRA’s Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) or Certified Realtime Reporter (CRR) can increase credibility and lead to better job opportunities.

---

Tips for Success as a Freelance Court Reporter

To thrive as a freelance court reporter, consider these best practices:

1. Invest in High-Quality Equipment: Reliable stenography machines, laptops, and transcription software are essential for efficiency.
2. Maintain Accuracy and Speed: The ability to quickly and accurately transcribe proceedings will set you apart from competitors.
3. Manage Finances Wisely: Since freelancers don’t have employer-provided benefits, it’s crucial to budget for taxes, insurance, and retirement savings.
4. Be Adaptable: Different assignments may require different formats and styles of transcription. Flexibility is key to keeping clients satisfied.
5. Keep Learning: Continuous professional development through courses and certifications will help you stay competitive in the industry.

---

Conclusion

Freelancing as a court reporter offers numerous advantages, including flexibility, high earning potential, and a variety of job opportunities. While it requires discipline, networking, and business acumen, those who take the right approach can build a successful and rewarding career.

By leveraging job platforms, networking, and honing essential skills, freelance court reporters can thrive in this ever-growing field. Whether you’re just starting or looking to transition from a salaried position, freelancing in court reporting presents an exciting and profitable career path.

In the realm of professional practice, maintaining ethical standards and ensuring accountability are paramount. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has long upheld the principle of “Responsible Charge” to safeguard the integrity of the engineering profession. This concept mandates that licensed engineers exercise direct control and personal supervision over engineering work, ensuring that all projects meet ethical, safety, and professional standards. The court reporting industry, which plays a crucial role in the judicial system, can draw valuable lessons from this model to enhance its own ethical frameworks and professional accountability.

Understanding “Responsible Charge” in Engineering

The NSPE defines “Responsible Charge” as the direct control and personal supervision of engineering work. This means that a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) must be actively involved in the engineering process from conception to completion, making critical decisions and overseeing the work to ensure it adheres to established standards. The PE cannot merely review documents post-preparation; they must be engaged throughout the project’s lifecycle.

csiresources.org

This principle ensures that engineering projects are executed with a high degree of professionalism and ethical responsibility. It holds engineers accountable for their work, requiring them to apply their expertise and judgment to protect public safety and welfare. By maintaining “Responsible Charge,” engineers affirm their commitment to ethical practice and the continuous oversight of their projects.

Ethical Frameworks in Court Reporting

Court reporters are entrusted with the critical task of capturing and transcribing legal proceedings accurately and impartially. The integrity of the judicial process relies heavily on their professionalism and ethical conduct. Recognizing this, professional organizations have established codes of ethics to guide court reporters in their duties.

The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) outlines several key ethical principles:

1. Impartiality: Court reporters must be fair and impartial toward each participant in all aspects of reported proceedings and always offer to provide comparable services to all parties. ncra.org
2. Conflict of Interest: They should be alert to situations that are conflicts of interest or may give the appearance of a conflict. If such a situation arises, the reporter must disclose it promptly. ncra.org
3. Confidentiality: Preserving confidentiality and ensuring the security of information entrusted to the reporter by any parties in a proceeding is paramount.

These ethical guidelines are designed to uphold the accuracy, impartiality, and confidentiality of the court reporting profession, thereby maintaining public trust in the judicial system.

Applying “Responsible Charge” to Court Reporting

While court reporters already uphold a high level of responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of their transcripts, the industry lacks a formal “Responsible Charge” statement. Adopting a concept similar to this could further reinforce professional accountability and integrity. By officially recognizing this critical value, the court reporting industry could enhance its commitment to ethical practices and strengthen the trust placed in its work within the legal system.

This involves court reporters being actively engaged in all stages of the reporting process, from the initial reporting of proceedings to the final transcription. They exercise direct oversight over any assistants or technologies used in the process, such as scopists and proofreaders, ensuring that every aspect of the work meets the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality.

Moreover, by adopting a “Responsible Charge” model, court reporters would affirm their commitment to continuous professional development, staying abreast of advancements in technology and best practices in the field. This proactive approach would not only enhance the quality of their work but also reinforce public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.

Benefits of Adopting a “Responsible Charge” Model

Implementing a “Responsible Charge” framework in court reporting offers several significant benefits:

1. Accountability: Court reporters are directly accountable for their work, ensuring a high level of diligence and professionalism.
2. Accuracy: With direct oversight of the entire reporting process, the likelihood of errors or omissions in transcripts are minimized.
3. Increased Public Trust: Demonstrating a commitment to ethical responsibility and professional standards bolsters public confidence in the court reporting profession and the judicial system as a whole.
4. Professional Development: A “Responsible Charge” model encourages continuous learning and adaptation to new technologies and methodologies, ensuring that court reporters remain at the forefront of their profession.

Adopting a “Responsible Charge” statement presents no significant challenges for the court reporting industry. It requires no additional training, technology, or changes to job responsibilities, as court reporters are already performing these duties. The value lies in formally recognizing this responsibility as the core strength of the profession within the legal industry. Implementing this framework simply affirms the professionalism, accountability, and ethical commitment that court reporters already provide.

Conclusion

The concept of “Responsible Charge” has been instrumental in upholding the integrity and professionalism of the engineering field. By adopting a similar framework, the court reporting industry can enhance its ethical standards, improve accountability, and reinforce public trust. The potential benefits make a compelling case for integrating “Responsible Charge” into the court reporting profession’s ethical framework. Through proactive engagement and a commitment to continuous improvement, court reporters can ensure that they continue to serve as impartial and accurate custodians of the judicial record.

“California’s New Freelance Worker Protection Act: What Court Reporters Need to Know in 2025” In a significant move to bolster protections for freelance professionals, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 988, known as the Freelance Worker Protection Act (FWPA), into law on September 28, 2024. Effective January 1, 2025, this legislation introduces critical safeguards for freelancers, including mandatory written contracts and stringent payment timelines. For court reporters operating as independent contractors, understanding and leveraging the FWPA is essential to ensure fair compensation and legal compliance.

Key Provisions of the Freelance Worker Protection Act

The FWPA establishes several fundamental requirements aimed at protecting freelance workers:

1. Mandatory Written Contracts: For engagements where the compensation is $250 or more, the hiring party must provide a written contract. This contract must include:
   • The names and mailing addresses of both the hiring party and the freelance worker.
   • An itemized list of services to be provided, detailing the value of each service and the rate and method of compensation.
   • The payment due date or the mechanism by which the payment date will be determined.
   • The date by which the freelance worker must submit a list of services rendered to facilitate timely payment.
2. Timely Payment: The FWPA mandates that payment be made as specified in the contract. If the contract does not specify a payment date, compensation must be rendered no later than 30 days after the completion of services. Importantly, once work has commenced, hiring parties cannot require freelancers to accept less compensation than agreed upon or to provide additional services as a condition for timely payment.
3. Anti-Retaliation Protections: The act prohibits hiring parties from discriminating or retaliating against freelancers who assert their rights under the FWPA. This includes protections for freelancers who oppose prohibited practices, participate in related proceedings, or seek to enforce their rights.
4. Enforcement and Remedies: Freelancers have the right to bring civil actions against hiring parties that violate the FWPA. Available remedies include injunctive relief, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and specified damages. For instance, if a hiring party refuses to provide a written contract upon request, the freelancer may be awarded an additional $1,000. Failure to pay timely compensation can result in damages up to twice the unpaid amount.

Implications for Court Reporters

As a court reporter operating as a freelance professional, the FWPA offers significant protections to ensure fair treatment and prompt payment. Here’s how you can benefit:

• Ensure Written Agreements: Always secure a written contract for assignments valued at $250 or more. This contract should clearly outline the services you will provide, the compensation rate, payment method, and payment schedule. Having a detailed contract not only aligns with FWPA requirements but also provides clarity and legal protection for both parties.
• Adhere to Invoicing Procedures: Submit your invoices promptly and in accordance with the terms specified in your contract. Clearly itemize the services rendered and ensure that your invoices align with the agreed-upon rates and payment schedules. This practice facilitates timely payment and serves as a record in case of disputes.
• Understand Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with the anti-retaliation provisions of the FWPA. If you encounter any adverse actions after asserting your rights—such as delayed payment, reduced compensation, or refusal of future work—you are protected under the law and can seek legal recourse.
• Maintain Records: Keep thorough records of all contracts, communications, and invoices related to your freelance work. The FWPA requires hiring parties to retain contracts for at least four years; as a best practice, you should do the same. These records are invaluable if you need to enforce your rights or substantiate a claim.

Preparing for the FWPA Implementation

With the FWPA taking effect on January 1, 2025, it’s crucial to prepare accordingly:

• Review Existing Contracts: Assess your current agreements to ensure they meet the FWPA’s requirements. If any contracts lack the necessary provisions, work with your clients to update them before the law takes effect.
• Educate Your Clients: Inform your clients about the FWPA and its implications. Encourage them to adopt compliant practices, such as providing detailed written contracts and adhering to specified payment terms.
• Seek Legal Advice if Necessary: If you’re uncertain about any aspects of the FWPA or how it applies to your work, consult with a legal professional specializing in labor law. They can provide guidance tailored to your specific situation and help ensure compliance.

Conclusion

The Freelance Worker Protection Act represents a significant advancement in safeguarding the rights of freelance professionals in California. For court reporters, this legislation ensures that your services are recognized with the respect and timely compensation they deserve. By understanding and adhering to the FWPA’s provisions, you can enhance your professional relationships, secure fair payment, and confidently navigate your freelance career.

For more detailed information, you can refer to the full text of the bill here.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being heralded as the future of court reporting, promising faster transcription speeds, improved accuracy, and better integration with case management systems. However, this rapid rise of AI technology in legal proceedings is a cause for concern, and its integration into sensitive legal processes may be more harmful than beneficial. The increasing reliance on AI for transcription work introduces significant risks that need to be critically examined. This article argues that AI should not replace human court reporters but instead be regarded with skepticism and caution due to its numerous limitations and potential ethical implications.

AI: A Threat to Accuracy and Context

One of the most significant promises AI makes is improving transcription accuracy. The argument is that AI can process speech much faster than humans, reducing the time and effort required to create legal transcripts. But speed is not always the ultimate goal in legal settings, where precision is paramount. AI often lacks the nuanced understanding of human speech, especially when it comes to legal terminology, colloquialisms, idiomatic expressions, and accents. It can fail to capture the true meaning behind complex testimony, rendering the resulting transcript either misleading or outright wrong.

While it’s true that AI can transcribe large volumes of speech quickly, it often does so without the comprehension required to understand legal context. A misinterpreted word or a lack of sensitivity to the tone of a speaker can drastically alter the meaning of testimony. This is where human court reporters are irreplaceable. Unlike AI, human reporters bring not only technical transcription skills, but also the ability to interpret the surrounding context, ensuring that no critical detail or subtlety is missed. AI simply lacks this depth of understanding, and as such, cannot be fully trusted in legal contexts where every word carries weight.

The Ethical Dangers of AI in Legal Transcription

The ethical concerns surrounding AI use in legal transcription are profound and cannot be ignored. AI tools, in their very design, require large datasets of information to function effectively. These datasets can sometimes include sensitive or confidential information, raising the specter of data breaches or inadvertent exposure of private details. AI’s reliance on such data, even if anonymized, leaves the door open for ethical violations. The possibility of data leaks, unintentional cross-contamination of information, or unauthorized access to personal identifiable information (PII) or personal health information (PHI) cannot be dismissed lightly.

The training of AI systems often involves information gathered from a wide array of sources, some of which may not be vetted or protected to the same degree as confidential legal documents. Despite claims that AI transcription systems adhere to strict confidentiality protocols, no technological system is foolproof. Cybersecurity threats are a constant and growing concern, and AI-based systems are often prime targets. Relying on AI in this context could expose sensitive information to potential breaches and misuse, a risk far too great for something as vital as the integrity of the legal process.

Human Judgment is Irreplaceable

The idea of AI as a collaborator, rather than a replacement for court reporters, is a widely circulated narrative. The truth, however, is that human judgment is irreplaceable. Court reporters are not merely transcribing speech; they are also exercising critical judgment throughout the process. They flag problematic sections of testimony, interpret nuanced dialogue, and have a duty to correct inaccuracies in real time. AI cannot replicate these instincts.

Furthermore, legal proceedings are often chaotic and unpredictable. Court reporters are trained to adapt to these unpredictable environments, handling disruptions, changes in speech patterns, and urgent requests for clarifications. AI, on the other hand, requires human intervention for these adjustments. It may misinterpret speech when the environment becomes noisy or when speakers are interrupted, adding another layer of uncertainty to its efficacy. In high-stakes legal proceedings, this lack of flexibility could prove disastrous.

The Cultural Blind Spots of AI

The legal world is not just filled with complex jargon; it is also diverse, with multiple languages, dialects, and cultural nuances that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While AI systems can process large amounts of speech data, they often struggle to accurately represent the diverse expressions and idioms found in different legal communities. For example, terms or references that are culturally significant may be misinterpreted or lost entirely by an AI system. This is especially true in courts where different dialects or regional accents may be present.

Human court reporters, however, bring a vital cultural awareness to the table. They can adapt to various linguistic and cultural variations and ensure that the integrity of the record is maintained. By relying on AI, we risk a diminished ability to ensure that transcripts faithfully represent the diversity of voices in the courtroom.

AI’s Limitations in Security and Confidentiality

While proponents of AI often tout the advanced encryption and privacy features of AI systems, the fact remains that human oversight is crucial to ensuring confidentiality in legal matters. AI is only as secure as the humans who maintain and monitor it. We cannot place blind trust in any automated system, particularly one that deals with sensitive data. The very premise that AI can bolster confidentiality is flawed when the system’s reliance on external oversight and constant maintenance is considered.

It is worth noting that many legal professionals already trust human reporters with the responsibility of ensuring confidentiality. This long-established tradition should not be undermined by AI, whose security protocols are constantly being tested and challenged. Instead of reducing human involvement, the legal system should prioritize strengthening the role of human reporters who are bound by strict confidentiality rules and whose loyalty to the court and its proceedings cannot be questioned.

The Risk of Job Displacement and Over-Reliance on Technology

AI’s integration into court reporting raises serious concerns about job displacement. As technology continues to improve, it is not unreasonable to fear that the profession of court reporting may be diminished or even replaced altogether. The human touch, judgment, and adaptability in the courtroom cannot be replicated by a machine, and the loss of these essential skills would be detrimental to the legal field.

Moreover, the reliance on AI in other areas of legal work could have far-reaching consequences. If we continue down this path, it could signal a wider trend toward over-reliance on AI systems at the expense of the human professionals who have long ensured the integrity of legal processes. A balance must be struck, but the growing enthusiasm for AI threatens to tip the scales in favor of automation, jeopardizing the jobs and expertise that have upheld the legal system for generations.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Path Forward

While AI has its place in the legal world, its integration into court reporting should be viewed with caution. The risks associated with its lack of nuance, ethical concerns, potential for job displacement, and inability to adapt to unpredictable courtroom scenarios far outweigh the promises of efficiency and speed. The legal field is not a place where shortcuts should be taken, especially when it comes to the accuracy, confidentiality, and fairness of transcripts.

Instead of hastily adopting AI, the legal industry must carefully consider the potential long-term consequences. Court reporters are not an obsolete relic of the past but an essential part of the legal process, one that must not be replaced by a machine, no matter how sophisticated. By safeguarding the human role in court reporting, we ensure that the legal process remains grounded in the values of accuracy, fairness, and accountability.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force across multiple industries, helping professionals become more efficient, accurate, and organized. While there’s often concern that AI will replace human roles, it’s more accurate to view AI as a powerful tool that supports and enhances the work of experts. This is especially true for court reporters, whose roles are critical in maintaining the integrity of the legal system. While AI cannot replace the nuanced judgment and legal expertise that court reporters bring to the table, it can certainly aid them in several key areas, such as research, verifying spellings, and culling attorney contact information to populate our appearance pages.

AI is revolutionizing the way we access and interact with information! Leading AI models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, Microsoft’s CoPilot, IBM’s Watson, Apple’s Apple Intelligence, and China’s DeepSeek are reshaping the digital landscape, marking a new era of Information Technology.

With AI, you can receive concise or detailed answers to almost any question, significantly reducing the time spent searching through traditional search engines. Some AI tools can browse the web in real time, while others generate responses based on vast knowledge databases. AI makes information more accessible by presenting it in clear, conversational language and allowing for interactive discussions on complex topics.

For example, you can ask AI to list all the cities in your state with a population under one million that have no snowfall in winter; you can ask about health and wellness without getting lost down the rabbit hole of endless clicks on google search results, or find detailed instructions on growing your spring garden, with images and follow-up offers for more information you might not have thought of; you can seek from AI self-improvement, travel advice, weight loss, the latest science and technology, or guidance on investment basics. You can have a conversation with all your inquiries met about any topic you can imagine. AI can rapidly analyze data and provide insights that would otherwise take hours of manual research.

AI in Court Reporting: A Tool for Efficiency and Accuracy

Court reporters are essential in capturing and documenting the spoken word during legal proceedings. They produce accurate verbatim transcripts that serve as the official record of hearings, trials, and other legal events. This responsibility requires not only technical skills, but also a strong understanding of legal terminology, case details, and the ability to work under tight deadlines. While AI can’t replicate the deep expertise and decision-making capabilities of a skilled court reporter, it can greatly improve their efficiency and ensure a higher level of accuracy when it comes to research and data management.

AI is not replacing human research—it’s an advanced tool that enhances our ability to find and process information. In industries like medicine, AI assists doctors by analyzing patient data and suggesting possible diagnoses or treatments, while final decisions still rest with medical professionals.

How AI Can Assist Court Reporters

1. Legal Research

Court reporters often work in fast-paced environments where they are required to keep up with a wide variety of legal cases. One of the most time-consuming aspects of their work is the need to research legal precedents, statutes, and case laws relevant to the proceedings they are covering. This requires knowledge of specific legal databases and an understanding of how to search through relevant documents.

AI can play a significant role in legal research by offering advanced tools that process massive volumes of legal data quickly. AI-driven platforms can help court reporters access and sift through case law, statutes, and judicial rulings, quickly providing relevant information for the case at hand. By doing so, AI minimizes the time spent on manual research, enabling court reporters to focus more on the transcript’s quality and accuracy.

These AI tools can also keep court reporters up-to-date with recent changes in the law, automatically flagging any new precedents or rulings that might impact their work. This helps them maintain accuracy, ensuring that transcripts reflect the latest legal developments. The quick access to relevant legal information enables court reporters to create more accurate, informed, and reliable records of the proceedings.

2. Spellings and Legal Terminology Verification

Legal documents are filled with specialized terms, names, acronyms, and specific jargon that are essential to the integrity of the transcript. One of the biggest challenges for court reporters is ensuring that every name, term, and phrase is spelled correctly and consistently throughout the transcript. A small mistake, such as misspelling an attorney’s name or confusing legal terminology, can lead to significant issues down the line.

AI can assist by offering spell-checking and terminology verification tools specifically tailored for legal contexts. These tools are capable of recognizing and suggesting the correct spellings for even the most complex legal terms, case names, and jargon.

By leveraging AI to offer spellings, court reporters can save valuable time that would otherwise be spent manually searching through Google and other internet databases. However, it’s important to remember that human expertise is necessary to ensure that context is taken into account. AI can offer tools to aide a court reporter in producing transcripts, but the court reporter must use their judgment to make the final decision.

3. Managing Attorney Contact Information

Court reporters often need to find up-to-date contact information for attorneys involved in the cases they work on. This includes names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and law firm details. Finding this information can be particularly challenging when court reporters are working on tight deadlines, and ensuring that all contact details are accurate and current is essential.

AI can help streamline this process by using intelligent algorithms to track and update attorney contact details. AI-powered systems can help court reporters quickly locate specific attorneys or law firms and provide the most current contact information, often by cross-referencing public databases and legal directories. These systems can also organize contact information in an easily searchable database, making it quicker and more efficient for court reporters to retrieve the details they need during or after proceedings.

4. Researching Case-Specific Information

Court reporters sometimes need to dig into specific case details—whether it’s past rulings, associated documents, or other important pieces of information—that can help them understand the context of a legal proceeding. For example, they might need to look up a past decision in the same case or find specific articles of law that are referenced in the hearing. This research is often tedious and time-consuming.

AI can dramatically reduce the time spent on this kind of research by instantly accessing legal databases, identifying relevant documents, and even summarizing important case details. AI systems can search through a vast amount of legal texts, providing court reporters with summarized information or direct links to the most pertinent documents. This quick access allows court reporters to better understand the context of the proceeding and ensures that they’re accurately reflecting the intent of the attorneys and judges involved.

By automating the research process, AI allows court reporters to focus more on the actual documentation of the hearing or trial, knowing that they have accurate and comprehensive case information at their fingertips.

5. Improving Workflow and Organization

In addition to assisting with legal research, spellings, and finding contact information, AI can improve the overall workflow for court reporters. AI tools can help keep track of deadlines, organize transcript deadlines and workload, and even handle administrative tasks like scheduling. By automating these routine processes, AI allows court reporters to focus on the critical aspects of their work—ensuring that the final transcript is accurate, comprehensive, free from error, and turned in on time.

Furthermore, AI can offer intelligent search capabilities to help court reporters quickly retrieve the information they need, whether it’s a particular transcript, case law, or attorney contact. This reduces the need for manual searching, helping court reporters stay organized and on top of their work.

The Human Element in Court Reporting

While AI offers numerous advantages, it’s important to recognize that it cannot replace the judgment, expertise, and critical thinking that human court reporters provide. The role of the court reporter is not just about typing or transcribing—it involves interpreting the meaning of legal proceedings, understanding the nuances of legal language, and making decisions about the accuracy and integrity of the final transcript.

AI can assist with research, terminology, and contact information management, but the final responsibility for accuracy, consistency, and quality rests with the human court reporter. Court reporters still need to exercise their professional judgment to ensure that the data provided by AI tools is correct and relevant in the context of the case.

Conclusion

AI is an invaluable tool for court reporters, offering support in areas such as legal research, terminology verification, and finding attorney contact information. By automating routine tasks and providing faster, more accurate access to information, AI enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of court reporters, allowing them to focus on their core responsibilities. However, the human element remains essential to the process. Court reporters’ expertise, judgment, and attention to detail are irreplaceable, and AI should be seen as a partner that supports rather than replaces their role.

With AI as a trusted ally, court reporters can continue to provide high-quality, accurate transcripts that are essential to the legal system, all while benefiting from the speed, organization, and insight that AI brings to the table. The future of court reporting lies in the collaboration between human skill and advanced technology, and AI is the key to unlocking even greater potential in this field. AI will empower us to work smarter, learn faster, and solve problems more efficiently than ever before!

Introduction

The California court system has recently been embroiled in a heated controversy surrounding the use of electronic recording equipment in courtrooms, the status of court reporters, and how the law is being interpreted in this regard. This debate has captured the attention of the public, legal professionals, and the media. The case at the heart of this controversy is the Los Angeles Superior Court’s (LASC) recent actions, the California Court Reporters Association’s (CCRA) legal battles, and the failed passage of California Senate Bill 662 (SB 662), which would have legalized the use of electronic recording systems in certain courtrooms. These developments have raised significant concerns about the future of court reporting, the integrity of the legal process, and the potential consequences for the public.

The Attempt to Change the Law: SB 662 and Its Failure

Senate Bill 662 (SB 662) was a significant piece of proposed legislation in California aimed at modernizing the court system and addressing a perceived shortage of court reporters. The bill, introduced in 2023, sought to authorize the use of electronic recording equipment in courtrooms for civil, probate, and family law cases. Proponents of SB 662 argued that such a measure would be a cost-effective solution to the ongoing shortage of court reporters, which had left many courtrooms understaffed.

However, the bill faced significant opposition from various legal organizations, including the CCRA, which argued that replacing human court reporters with electronic recording equipment would undermine the accuracy and fairness of court proceedings. Despite extensive lobbying efforts and significant backing from various sectors, SB 662 failed to pass in January 2024, leaving the question of electronic recording in the courts unresolved.

The failure of SB 662 was a blow to the Los Angeles Superior Court and other jurisdictions that had already begun preparing for the implementation of electronic recording. In particular, the LASC had already installed recording equipment in all of its civil courtrooms and trained court clerks in its use, leading to a substantial financial investment by the county. With the bill’s failure, there were concerns about how these resources would be justified, as well as the broader implications of circumventing existing laws related to court reporting.

The CCRA’s Legal Victory: County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) (1993)

The legal struggle surrounding electronic recording in California’s courts is not new. In 1993, the CCRA filed a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles, arguing that the county had violated the law by using electronic recording equipment in courtrooms where court reporters were required. The case, County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar), ultimately resulted in a victory for the CCRA, with the California Court of Appeal upholding the ruling that the county was in violation of existing laws.

The ruling in Kusar was based on Government Code § 69957, which prohibits the use of electronic recording in certain types of cases, including unlimited civil, probate, and family law cases, unless the parties involved agree to the use of such technology. The law explicitly requires that court reporters transcribe these proceedings to ensure an accurate record. Despite this clear legal mandate, the issue of electronic recording has continued to surface in various courtrooms across California, raising questions about whether the law is being followed.

The CCRA’s legal victory in Kusar established a precedent that reinforced the requirement for court reporters in cases that were not exempt under the law. However, recent developments, particularly the actions of LASC, have called this precedent into question. The ongoing legal battles and the potential for further litigation suggest that the issue of electronic recording in the courts is far from settled.

Government Code 69957: The Law Against Electronic Recording in Civil, Probate, and Family Law Cases

At the heart of this controversy is Government Code § 69957, a law that prohibits the use of electronic recording equipment in unlimited civil, probate, and family law cases. This law was enacted to ensure the accuracy and reliability of court records in cases where complex legal issues and significant financial stakes are at play. Court reporters, who are trained to accurately transcribe legal proceedings, are considered essential to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process in these types of cases.

The law has been in effect for several decades, and its purpose is to ensure that all parties in a legal proceeding have access to an accurate, verbatim transcript of the proceedings. This is particularly important in complex cases where the details of the trial are crucial to the outcome. Electronic recording systems, while useful in some circumstances, have been criticized for their inability to capture the nuances of legal testimony and arguments. Critics argue that such systems are prone to errors, and that they do not provide the same level of accuracy and reliability as a human court reporter.

Despite the legal restrictions outlined in § 69957, there has been a growing push in some courtrooms, particularly in Los Angeles, to use electronic recording equipment as a cost-saving measure. This has raised concerns among court reporters and other legal professionals, who argue that the law is being ignored in favor of expedience and cost-cutting measures. The CCRA has been vocal in its opposition to these efforts, citing the potential negative consequences for the legal system and the rights of individuals involved in court cases.

The Motive Behind Jessner’s Order: Justifying the Investment in Electronic Recording Equipment

In September 2024, LASC Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner issued a controversial order allowing the use of electronic recording in civil courtrooms, despite the clear restrictions outlined in Government Code § 69957. Jessner’s order came after the failure of SB 662, which had been viewed as a potential legal basis for implementing electronic recording in these courtrooms. According to reports from court clerks, all civil courtrooms at the Mosk Courthouse had been equipped with electronic recording systems, and clerks had already received training in how to use the equipment.

Given the significant financial investment made by LASC in these systems, it is believed that Jessner’s order was an attempt to justify the costs incurred by the county. The installation of recording equipment and the training of clerks had reportedly cost millions of dollars, and without the passage of SB 662, there was concern that these investments would go to waste. Jessner’s order, therefore, may have been motivated by a desire to justify these expenditures and ensure that the county’s investment in technology did not go unused.

Critics, however, argue that Jessner’s order represents an unlawful and unconstitutional attempt to circumvent established law. By allowing electronic recording in courtrooms where court reporters are required, Jessner’s order is seen as an effort to bypass the legal restrictions outlined in § 69957. This has led to allegations of fraud, as some judges have been accused of falsely claiming that § 69957 allows them to use electronic recording equipment in these cases.

Allegations of Fraud: Misleading Signs and False Claims in the Courtrooms

One of the most concerning aspects of this controversy is the allegation of fraud surrounding the use of electronic recording equipment in California courtrooms. Judges in some unlimited civil courtrooms, particularly in Los Angeles, have been displaying signs that claim Government Code § 69957 allows for electronic recording in these cases. These signs are misleading, as the law clearly prohibits the use of electronic recording equipment in such cases unless all parties involved agree to it.

The CCRA has been vocal in its criticism of these false claims, arguing that they are a violation of the law and a breach of the public’s trust in the legal system. The use of misleading signs in courtrooms is seen as an attempt to circumvent the law and push through the use of electronic recording systems, despite the legal restrictions that exist.

Further compounding the allegations of fraud is the claim that there is no actual shortage of court reporters in California. Jessner’s order was partly justified by the argument that there is a nationwide shortage of court reporters, but critics argue that this shortage is exaggerated and that the actual number of court reporters in California has been increasing in recent years. According to some reports, California has seen an increase of 750 court reporters, while the number of reporters lost to retirement or attrition has been relatively small, with a net loss of around 900.

Moreover, it has been alleged that LASC refused to hire court reporters last year, despite a growing number of applicants. According to some insiders, the court system hired only three new court reporters while rejecting at least 12 applicants who were qualified for the positions. These actions raise questions about the true motives behind the push for electronic recording and whether the shortage of court reporters is being used as a pretext for implementing a system that may be less accurate and more cost-effective for the county.

The Ducker Study and the Speech-to-Text Institute: Exposing the Fraud

A key part of the justification for using electronic recording in the courts was the Ducker Study, a report commissioned by the Trial Court Consortium in 2022. This report relied on data from the now-defunct Speech-to-Text Institute (STTI), which had predicted a significant shortage of court reporters. However, this forecast has since been discredited, with many court reporter bloggers and industry experts exposing the inaccuracies of the STTI’s claims. The STTI’s predictions were based on flawed and unverifiable data, leading to accusations of fraud within the court reporting industry.

The STTI’s former president, who was also the president of Stenograph, a company that manufactures steno machines, resigned from both organizations after the fraudulent claims were exposed. The STTI was eventually shut down, and its reports were discredited as part of a broader effort to mislead the public and the court system about the state of the court reporting profession.

The Future of Court Reporting: Legal and Constitutional Implications

The ongoing legal battles surrounding the use of electronic recording in California’s courts have far-reaching implications for the future of court reporting in the state and beyond. The controversy raises important questions about the role of court reporters in the judicial system, the integrity of the legal process, and the potential consequences of allowing electronic recording systems to replace human reporters.

As California grapples with these issues, other states are closely watching the outcome of this case, as the issue of electronic recording in courts has the potential to spread to other jurisdictions. If California, the most populous state in the nation, were to adopt electronic recording on a widespread scale, it could set a precedent for other states to follow, with potentially disastrous consequences for the accuracy and fairness of court proceedings.

Ultimately, the resolution of this controversy will have far-reaching implications not only for the legal profession but for the public’s trust in the judicial system. As the case unfolds, it is clear that the fight over the future of court reporting in California is far from over.

Conclusion

The battle over the use of electronic recording in California’s courts represents a complex legal and constitutional issue that touches on the heart of the judicial system’s integrity. The failure of SB 662, the legal victory of the CCRA in the Kusar case, and the recent actions of LASC have all contributed to a growing sense of unease about the future of court reporting in the state. As the controversy continues to unfold, it is essential for the legal community to carefully consider the implications of these developments and ensure that the rights of all parties involved in legal proceedings are upheld.

The potential for a constitutional crisis, as some have warned, is real, and the outcome of this case could have significant repercussions for the legal system not only in California but across the United States. Whether or not electronic recording will be allowed to replace human court reporters remains to be seen, but it is clear that the legal battle over this issue is far from over.

In a controversial move, the Los Angeles Superior Court has recently authorized the use of electronic recording for a wide range of case types, despite the clear violation of California law. This decision, issued by Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, has generated significant pushback from court reporters, legal professionals, and labor unions, who argue that the shift to electronic recording is unlawful, dangerous, and detrimental to the integrity of the legal system.

California law mandates that licensed court reporters provide verbatim transcripts of court proceedings to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the legal process. By replacing human reporters with electronic recording systems, the Los Angeles Superior Court is not only bypassing these legal requirements but also introducing a host of risks related to the reliability of the court record. Electronic recording systems, while efficient in some contexts, lack the human expertise necessary to handle the complexity of legal proceedings, putting the accuracy of transcripts at risk.

The Legal Violations and Ethical Concerns

The decision to rely on electronic recording in place of human court reporters is a direct violation of California law, which requires licensed reporters to transcribe legal proceedings in most case types. Electronic recording systems are prone to technical failures, inaccuracies, and an inability to capture the nuances of legal language. Furthermore, these machines cannot ask for clarification when something is unclear, potentially leading to incomplete or erroneous records.

Court reporters, by contrast, ensure that the record is accurate and reliable. They are trained to handle specialized legal terminology, to detect and correct errors, and to maintain a complete and accurate transcript. A flawed record — such as one produced by an electronic recording system — can undermine the fairness of trials, appeals, and other legal actions, ultimately denying individuals access to proper justice.

The ethical responsibility of maintaining an accurate, reliable court record is paramount. If the Los Angeles Superior Court is allowed to move forward with its decision, it could set a dangerous precedent that diminishes the role of human court reporters across the state. As the situation continues to unfold, many are questioning whether cost-saving measures are being prioritized over the integrity of the justice system itself.

The Manufactured Reporter Shortage

At the heart of the issue is the accusation that the shortage of court reporters in California is, in fact, a manufactured crisis. Critics argue that the Los Angeles Superior Court has systematically undermined the availability of qualified court reporters through layoffs and rejection of applicants, creating the illusion of a shortage to justify replacing human reporters with electronic systems.

The court’s failure to hire enough reporters, combined with a flawed hiring process, has led to a situation where the narrative of a “shortage” is being used as an excuse to implement substandard recording methods. Many experienced, qualified reporters have been turned away, even as the need for court reporters remains high. This manufactured shortage makes the court’s decision to use electronic recording seem like a foregone conclusion, but critics point out that the real issue is mismanagement and a refusal to prioritize proper staffing.

CCRA’s Response

In light of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) has raised its voice in opposition. On September 5, 2024, CCRA President Brooke Ryan issued a public statement condemning the court’s actions and calling for the immediate reversal of the order. The CCRA argues that the decision to use electronic recording violates state law and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the court reporting profession.

CCRA’s response highlights the significant flaws in the court’s reasoning, pointing out that the shortage of court reporters is not a natural occurrence but a direct result of the court’s previous actions — including layoffs and an exclusionary hiring process. CCRA has called on the Los Angeles Superior Court to engage in a dialogue with the labor unions and court reporters to find solutions that address staffing shortages while upholding the integrity of the court system.

The association has also emphasized that the Los Angeles Superior Court has been warned multiple times about the consequences of its actions. The move to electronic recording is seen as a calculated attempt to phase out human reporters in favor of machines, further eroding the quality of the legal record.

What Others Can Do

As this issue continues to develop, it is crucial for individuals who care about the integrity of California’s legal system to voice their concerns. The decision to allow electronic recording to replace licensed court reporters has far-reaching consequences for the fairness of the legal process, and it is essential for the public and legal professionals to take action.

1. Contact the Los Angeles Superior Court: Concerned individuals can contact the Los Angeles Superior Court directly to express their opposition to the decision. Letters and emails can be sent to Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, urging her to reverse the order and reconsider the impact of this decision on the accuracy and fairness of the court record.
2. Support Court Reporters and Unions: Court reporters and their unions are at the forefront of this fight. Supporting their efforts, whether through petitions, public endorsements, or donations, helps amplify their message and puts pressure on the court to reconsider its stance.
3. Engage with Legislators: California lawmakers have the power to step in and help address this issue at the state level. By contacting local representatives and urging them to take action to protect the role of human court reporters, concerned citizens can help prevent this dangerous trend from spreading.
4. Raise Public Awareness: Social media and public forums are powerful tools for raising awareness of the issue. Sharing information about the consequences of replacing court reporters with electronic systems can help inform the public and rally support for the cause.

The Path Forward

The decision to move toward electronic recording is more than just a technical shift — it is a legal and ethical challenge that could have long-lasting consequences for the legal system in California. If the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision is allowed to stand, it could lead to a significant erosion of the role of court reporters in the state, ultimately undermining the quality and fairness of the court record.

As court reporters, legal professionals, and concerned citizens continue to push back, the hope is that the Los Angeles Superior Court will reconsider its decision and work toward a solution that ensures a sufficient number of qualified court reporters are hired and retained. In doing so, California can maintain the integrity of its legal system and protect the rights of all those who rely on a fair and accurate court record.

The next few months will be critical in determining the future of court reporting in California. With continued advocacy and public pressure, there is still hope for a positive resolution to this ongoing issue.

The 50 Shades of Steno Imposters And How They’re Getting Away With It Undetected

The legal profession is one of the pillars of modern society, often regarded as the embodiment of trust and professionalism. Among the critical components of the legal process is stenography, or “steno,” the practice of using shorthand to transcribe verbatim speech quickly and accurately. Court reporters, equipped with specialized equipment and skills, play an essential role in capturing everything that happens in a courtroom and in deposition settings, ensuring that every word is preserved for future reference.

However, like any other profession, the world of steno is not immune to challenges such as fraud, deception, and impersonation. In recent years, an alarming trend has emerged, with more and more so-called “steno imposters” infiltrating the field. These individuals, who lack the necessary training or certification, are passing themselves off as qualified court reporters. Their presence has raised serious concerns about the accuracy and integrity of legal transcriptions, with many cases slipping through the cracks unnoticed.

In this article, we will explore the different types of steno imposters, their methods for deceiving others, and how they manage to get away with it undetected. We will also examine the consequences of these fraudulent activities on the legal profession, the justice system, and the public at large.

The Rise of Steno Imposters: Who Are They?

Stenographers, by nature, are highly specialized professionals who undergo rigorous training to master their craft. In order to become certified, they must pass examinations that assess both their technical ability to use shorthand and their knowledge of legal terminology. However, as with many fields, a small but growing number of individuals are attempting to bypass these qualifications.

Steno imposters fall into several categories, each with their own unique methods of infiltration. Some of the most common types of steno imposters include:

1. The Unqualified “Fake Reporter”

These individuals claim to be certified stenographers, using forged credentials or false representations to convince others that they have the required training. They may present fake diplomas, membership in nonexistent associations, or even forged certification documents in order to secure work in courts, depositions, or other legal settings. These imposters often rely on their ability to speak the “language” of stenography, using jargon and technical terms that they have memorized, but lacking the true competence to transcribe effectively.

2. The Under-Qualified “Near-Miss”

Some imposters have attempted to pass certification exams but failed to do so. However, they still manage to convince employers and clients that they are qualified. They may use a variety of excuses for their failure to obtain certification, such as claiming they were “almost there” or that they “just need one more exam to pass.” These individuals often lack the speed or accuracy required to be a reliable stenographer, but they manage to slip through the cracks due to their persistence or charm.

3. The “Tech Savvy” Fraudster

With the increasing reliance on technology in the legal field, some imposters take advantage of advancements in speech recognition software or other tools to impersonate qualified stenographers. These fraudsters use AI-powered software to transcribe speech in real-time, presenting a polished transcript without ever having to learn the art of stenography themselves. While this technology can be incredibly helpful, it’s often unreliable and inaccurate, especially in legal contexts where precision is paramount. Yet, many individuals are able to pass off these automated transcriptions as legitimate, making it difficult for clients or legal professionals to detect the fraud.

4. The “Untrained Temp”

In some cases, steno imposters are simply people who are untrained or undertrained, but find their way into the profession due to a lack of qualified stenographers in certain areas. These individuals may be hired as temporary workers or substitutes, filling in for certified professionals who are unavailable. However, because they lack the skills necessary for the role, they often make errors that go unnoticed until later, when a transcript is reviewed or a critical error is uncovered.

5. The “Plausible Deniability” Con Artist

These imposters are often savvy con artists who know how to take advantage of the system. They carefully cultivate an air of respectability, frequently changing locations and employers to avoid detection. Their tactics include providing just enough proof of their credentials or offering testimonies from clients that support their false claims. They are masters of manipulation and often rely on the lack of a centralized database of stenographers to keep their fraudulent activities under the radar.

How Are They Getting Away with It?

Despite the sophistication of modern stenography tools and techniques, these imposters continue to operate undetected in the field for a number of reasons.

1. Lack of Verification and Oversight

One of the key reasons why steno imposters are able to operate without being caught is the absence of stringent verification processes. Unlike other professions, there is no universal, central database where employers or clients can easily verify the credentials of stenographers. In some cases, these imposters may have worked for multiple employers who never checked their certification status, enabling them to continue with their fraudulent activities.

2. The Pressure for Affordable Services

There is a growing demand for court reporters and stenographers, but the costs associated with hiring qualified professionals can be prohibitive for some clients. This has led to a market where some employers are willing to accept lower rates, creating opportunities for imposters to sneak in. They promise high-quality services at a fraction of the cost, making it harder for clients to resist the temptation to hire them. This situation has created an environment in which a low price point is often valued more than the quality or reliability of the service.

3. Tech Solutions Masking Incompetence

Some of the aforementioned “tech savvy” fraudsters use automated transcription services or voice recognition software to mimic real-time stenography. While these tools can certainly assist professionals in capturing speech, they cannot replace the nuanced understanding of context, punctuation, and legal terminology that a trained stenographer provides. However, because the technology has become more advanced, it’s difficult for clients to distinguish between an automated service and a skilled professional without conducting thorough audits of the final transcript.

4. Subtle Errors and “Close Enough” Quality

Many steno imposters don’t make glaring errors, but instead make subtle mistakes that go unnoticed until much later. Minor transcription errors can be difficult to detect in the fast-paced environment of a courtroom, especially when they don’t significantly alter the meaning of the text. An imposter may even go unnoticed for years if they continue to make only small, inconsequential mistakes.

5. Difficulties in Reporting and Enforcement

Even when the fraud is discovered, reporting it can be complicated. Many clients are hesitant to make accusations without solid evidence, and some are even unaware that they have been taken advantage of. This leads to a lack of formal complaints, which in turn means there is little enforcement against fraudulent stenographers. Without a reliable reporting system in place, it’s difficult for authorities or professional organizations to act swiftly and decisively to remove imposters from the field.

The Consequences of Steno Impostors

The consequences of having unqualified or fraudulent stenographers in the field are far-reaching. First and foremost, accuracy in legal transcriptions is paramount. Mistakes, however small, can have severe consequences in court proceedings, potentially altering the course of a trial, leading to wrongful convictions, or undermining the fairness of legal proceedings.

Additionally, these imposters undermine the integrity of the legal profession as a whole, making it harder for legitimate stenographers to earn trust and respect. The presence of fraud in this field also damages the public’s faith in the legal system, as the public becomes aware that there are individuals who are impersonating professionals and jeopardizing the justice process.

How to Detect and Prevent Steno Impostors

Combating the rise of steno imposters requires a multi-faceted approach. Increased vigilance, thorough credential verification, regular audits of transcripts, and better education and training for stenographers are all essential steps in tackling this issue. Legal professionals and clients alike must become more proactive in identifying potential frauds, and taking action when they spot discrepancies.

Ultimately, maintaining the integrity of the steno profession requires a concerted effort from all parties involved, from the certification bodies to the legal teams hiring court reporters. Only through vigilance and cooperation can the shades of imposter stenographers be uncovered and eradicated for good.

The New Gold Rush – court reporting agencies trade stenographers for profits and endanger the entire legal industry!

The legal industry is facing an unprecedented crisis, one that has remained largely under the radar, yet threatens the very foundation of the judicial process. Court reporting agencies, once dedicated to the integrity of legal transcription, have shifted their focus away from skilled stenographers in favor of cost-cutting alternatives that prioritize profits over accuracy. This new gold rush—where corporations exploit digital recording and offshore transcription services at the expense of trained stenographers—poses a grave danger to justice itself.

The Decline of Stenographers in Courtrooms

Historically, stenographers have been the backbone of courtroom proceedings. Their specialized training, which requires years of rigorous practice, enables them to transcribe legal proceedings with near-perfect accuracy in real-time. Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) not only ensure every word is captured, but also provide instant readbacks and certify transcripts as official records.

However, the legal industry is now witnessing a sharp decline in stenographic professionals. According to the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), the industry faces a shortage of more than 5,000 stenographers across the U.S., with many leaving due to low pay, lack of job security, and the rise of alternative transcription methods. But rather than invest in training new stenographers, court reporting agencies are accelerating their shift toward digital court reporting—a move that comes with significant risks.

The Rise of Digital Court Reporting and Its Pitfalls

In a bid to cut costs, many court reporting agencies are replacing skilled stenographers with digital recording systems and untrained transcribers. These digital court reporters (DCRs) rely on audio recordings, which are later transcribed either by software or outsourced personnel, often in countries with no legal oversight.

While these methods may seem cost-effective on the surface, they come with alarming downsides:

• Accuracy Issues: Unlike stenographers, who capture speech verbatim in real-time, digital recorders often struggle with overlapping voices, background noise, and technical malfunctions. Poor-quality audio results in incomplete or inaccurate transcripts, which can impact legal decisions.
• Lack of Certification: Digital court reporters do not undergo the same rigorous certification process as stenographers, leading to a lower standard of accuracy and accountability.
• Security Risks: Many agencies outsource transcription to offshore workers, raising concerns about data security and the confidentiality of sensitive legal records.
• Legal Challenges: Courts rely on certified transcripts as official records, but digitally transcribed proceedings frequently contain errors or omissions that can jeopardize cases, leading to appeals and retrials.
• Lack of Judicial Oversight: Court reporters play an indispensable role in ensuring judicial oversight and the overall accountability of the justice system. Their transcripts serve as the permanent, unalterable record of courtroom proceedings, which is crucial for monitoring not only the fairness of the trial, but also for documenting any potential judicial misconduct. If a judge behaves improperly, it is often the court reporter’s record that enables the Judicial Council to investigate and address such actions. Without an accurate record, judges could act without oversight, knowing their words and decisions are not being reliably captured, potentially leading to unchecked abuse of power.
• Moreover, in the appellate process, a court reporter’s transcript serves as the foundation for a higher court to review and potentially overturn a trial decision. If this record is compromised by inaccuracies or missing details due to the rise of unreliable technology or unqualified individuals, the foundation of appeals collapses. In essence, court reporters safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power in the hands of judges, ensuring that no one, including judges, can escape accountability. Without their vital work, the system of checks and balances within the courts would be severely weakened, ultimately threatening the very foundation of justice.
• With digital or electronic recording systems owned and controlled by the court itself, there is a serious risk of manipulation, tampering, or outright destruction of records, especially in cases where the court or individuals involved may want to cover up negligence or misconduct. In the case of the Waukesha, WI Christmas Parade tragedy on November 21, 2021, for instance, if a court were guilty of negligence or mishandling the case, there would be nothing preventing them from deleting or altering digital records, either intentionally or as a result of poor system oversight. Unlike stenographic records, which are permanent, time-stamped, and verifiable by multiple parties, digital records are much more vulnerable to being erased, edited, or lost without anyone ever knowing.
• This lack of permanence and transparency in digital records creates an environment where accountability is compromised. Stenographers, on the other hand, create a physical, independent record that is much harder to tamper with or destroy, ensuring that courts can be held accountable for their actions—whether that’s the handling of evidence, testimony, or even the conduct of judges. If courts have control over digital systems, there is no safeguard to prevent them from manipulating records to cover up their own errors or misconduct, which poses a direct threat to judicial oversight and the fundamental principles of justice.
• In cases like Waukesha, WI, the importance of maintaining an accurate and untouchable record is even more urgent, as any erasure or alteration could deprive victims, families, and the public of the truth—and prevent a fair investigation or appeal. This highlights the irreplaceable role that human court reporters, with their professional expertise and independent records, play in ensuring justice is served and accountability is maintained.

Corporate Greed at the Heart of the Crisis

The shift away from stenographers is not driven by necessity, but by profit. Many court reporting agencies are now owned by private equity firms and large corporations, whose primary goal is maximizing shareholder returns, rather than ensuring judicial integrity. These entities view stenographic services as an unnecessary expense and prioritize methods that increase profit margins, even at the risk of compromising justice.

The so-called “court reporting shortage” has been strategically fabricated by the Speech-to-Text Institute (STTI) and certain big box agencies to serve their financial interests. By pushing this narrative, agencies justify replacing certified stenographers with unreliable digital alternatives, boosting their own profits while reducing accuracy in legal records. STTI, backed by digital reporting proponents, falsely claims a crisis to drive courts toward inferior technology. In reality, thousands of skilled stenographers are available, but agencies refuse to pay fair wages. Court reporter wages have not kept pace with inflation for over 50 years, further discouraging new professionals. This manufactured shortage undermines justice, prioritizing corporate greed over verbatim accuracy and the integrity of the legal system.

Rather than invest in recruitment and training programs for new stenographers, these agencies lobby for legislation that supports digital court reporting, despite overwhelming evidence that it is an inferior alternative. Some states have even begun relaxing certification requirements, allowing anyone with minimal training to work as a court reporter, further degrading the profession’s standards.

The Real-World Consequences of Digital Court Reporting

The dangers of replacing stenographers with digital alternatives are not hypothetical—they have already led to serious legal repercussions. Cases across the country have suffered due to transcription errors, missing testimony, and audio failures that rendered entire proceedings invalid. Some of the most glaring issues include:

• Criminal Trials in Jeopardy: In one case, a defendant’s appeal was delayed for years because the digital transcript contained numerous gaps and inaudible sections, preventing an accurate review of the trial record.
• Civil Lawsuits at Risk: Businesses and individuals have faced costly delays when transcripts failed to accurately reflect testimony, forcing parties to go through expensive and time-consuming re-litigation.
• Judge and Attorney Frustration: Legal professionals have voiced concerns that the lack of real-time readbacks—something stenographers provide instantaneously—slows down proceedings and hampers effective advocacy.

The Fight to Save Stenography

Despite these challenges, the legal community is pushing back against the profit-driven erosion of court reporting standards. Advocacy groups, including the NCRA, have launched initiatives to attract new stenographers and emphasize the profession’s critical role in maintaining justice. Some law firms and judges are also refusing to work with agencies that rely solely on digital reporting, demanding the return of certified stenographers to the courtroom. Judges are also refusing to admit transcripts that are not certified by a licensed court reporter.

Legislation may also play a role in reversing this trend. Some states are considering laws that would require stenographers for certain legal proceedings, recognizing that their expertise cannot be replaced by machines or untrained personnel. In California, a new law now requires court reporters to state their name and license number at the start of every proceeding. Furthermore, increased investment in court reporting education and apprenticeship programs could help replenish the profession’s ranks.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

The legal industry is at a crossroads. If the current trajectory continues, the accuracy and integrity of court records will be at risk, endangering the very foundation of the justice system. While digital technology has its place, it should be used to support, not replace, trained stenographers.

Court reporters play an indispensable role in ensuring judicial oversight and the overall accountability of the justice system. Their transcripts serve as the permanent, unalterable record of courtroom proceedings, which is crucial for monitoring not only the fairness of the trial but also for documenting any potential judicial misconduct. If a judge behaves improperly, it is often the court reporter’s record that enables the Judicial Council to investigate and address such actions. Without an accurate record, judges could act without oversight, knowing their words and decisions are not being reliably captured, potentially leading to unchecked abuse of power.

To prevent this crisis from deepening, legal professionals, lawmakers, and the public must take action. Court reporting agencies must be held accountable for prioritizing profits over justice. Law firms should demand stenographic services for critical proceedings. And aspiring professionals should be encouraged to enter the field through better pay, incentives, and career development opportunities.

This new gold rush—where court reporting agencies chase short-term profits at the expense of legal accuracy—must be stopped before it permanently undermines the fairness of the judicial system. The future of justice depends on it.

The Trumpets of Doom are silently wailing across American courtrooms as judges eagerly attempt to solve a problem that, in reality, does not exist: a supposed shortage of court reporters. This so-called crisis, first highlighted in a 2013 study by Ducker Worldwide, predicted a deficit of 5,500 court reporters by 2018. However, that shortage never truly materialized. Instead, what has emerged is something far more insidious—a calculated attempt to replace a critical, time-honored profession with inferior digital alternatives, jeopardizing the accuracy of court records and, ultimately, the integrity of democracy itself.

The Manufactured Crisis

The judicial system, legislators, attorneys, and court reporting associations were slow to react to the warnings raised by the Ducker study. When they finally did, the response was not to strengthen stenography education or address recruitment strategically but to open the floodgates for digital court reporting and voice-to-text software. These alternatives, while marketed as innovative and cost-effective, fail to meet the reliability standards of human stenographers. They are now being touted as the inevitable future despite mounting evidence of their inadequacy.

The irony is that the predicted court reporter shortage did not materialize in 2018 as forecasted. Instead, the field has seen a surge of interest, with stenography schools now experiencing unprecedented enrollment numbers. Stenographers have worked tirelessly to recruit and train new professionals, successfully counteracting the doomsday predictions. Yet, the push for digital reporting persists, driven not by necessity but by a concerted effort to replace highly skilled workers with automation that benefits corporations rather than the public.

The Fraud Perpetrated on the American Public

The real crisis lies not in a lack of stenographers but in the misinformation campaign that seeks to justify their replacement. Proponents of digital court reporting claim that artificial intelligence and voice recognition software can accurately transcribe legal proceedings, but real-world applications tell a different story. Unlike certified court reporters who undergo rigorous training, digital alternatives rely on automated transcription software and underqualified operators, leading to significant errors in official records.

Errors in legal transcripts can have devastating consequences. A single misinterpreted word in a court proceeding can change the entire outcome of a case. Stenographers provide real-time, verbatim transcription, ensuring accuracy and accountability—qualities that digital recording systems simply cannot replicate with the same reliability.

Furthermore, the widespread implementation of digital court reporting raises serious concerns about data security and privacy. With digital recordings susceptible to hacking and tampering, the integrity of legal records is at risk. Unlike stenographers, who provide a human safeguard against such breaches, digital systems introduce vulnerabilities that could be exploited to alter or manipulate court records, undermining the very foundation of justice.

The Corporate Agenda Behind the Digital Push

At the heart of this transition is a profit-driven agenda. Companies that manufacture and market digital reporting software stand to gain immensely by convincing judicial systems to adopt their technology under the guise of efficiency and cost-cutting. By shifting from human stenographers to automated systems, courts may see an immediate reduction in short-term costs, but at what long-term price?

The legal profession relies on accurate documentation of proceedings to ensure fair trials and due process. The replacement of stenographers with flawed digital alternatives prioritizes convenience over justice, efficiency over accuracy, and profit over the rights of individuals. This corporate-driven push is not unique to the legal system; it reflects a broader trend of automation replacing skilled professions, often with disastrous results.

The Undermining of Democracy

The repercussions of this digital takeover extend beyond the courtroom. Democracy thrives on transparency, accountability, and the rule of law—principles that require an accurate and indisputable record of legal proceedings. By replacing human stenographers with imperfect digital solutions, we introduce doubt and instability into a system that demands precision.

Imagine a scenario where a crucial piece of testimony is misinterpreted by automated transcription software. A defendant’s fate could hinge on a software error, leading to wrongful convictions or unjust rulings. The gradual erosion of reliable court records paves the way for corruption, as altered transcripts or missing testimonies could be manipulated to serve particular interests. When the very foundation of justice is compromised, democracy itself is at risk.

The digital deluge sweeping across the judicial system is not just a threat to the stenography profession—it is a direct assault on the integrity of legal proceedings and the democratic principles that govern America. By allowing technology to take precedence over human expertise, we are jeopardizing the accuracy of court records and endangering the lives of those who depend on them for justice.

Fighting Back: A Call to Action

It is not too late to counteract this dangerous shift. The legal community, policymakers, and the public must recognize the importance of preserving the stenography profession and resisting the corporate-driven push for digital court reporting. Here’s what can be done:

1. Educate Lawmakers and the Public – Awareness is key. Judicial bodies, attorneys, and legislators must be informed about the risks associated with digital reporting and the advantages of retaining human stenographers.
2. Strengthen Stenography Education – Investment in court reporting schools and training programs will ensure a steady influx of qualified professionals, negating any future shortages.
3. Implement Legislative Protections – Laws must be enacted to mandate the use of certified stenographers in legal proceedings, ensuring that human oversight remains the gold standard.
4. Challenge the Digital Takeover – The legal community should push back against the adoption of digital alternatives and demand evidence-based assessments of their effectiveness before implementation.
5. Expose the Corporate Agenda – Investigative efforts should be made to uncover the financial motivations behind the push for digital court reporting and to hold those responsible accountable.

The battle to preserve stenography is not just about protecting jobs; it is about safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system and, by extension, American democracy. If we allow the digital deluge to wash away the human element from our courts, we risk losing far more than just a profession—we risk losing justice itself.

The Trumpets of Doom may be wailing, but they are not yet signaling the end. There is still time to resist this manufactured crisis and ensure that democracy, truth, and justice remain firmly rooted in the American courtroom. The fight for stenography is a fight for democracy, and it is one we must not lose.

Have you read Christopher Day’s article, “Forced to Pay NCRA…”?

Forced to Pay NCRA Membership Dues to Work In Your State? Contact Stenonymous!

I’ve long believed it’s problematic for a third-party nonprofit organization to require a license in order to work in a state, yet this practice is common and not widely questioned.

In the 1980s, the National Society of Professional Engineers (PE) faced a similar issue: too many people were calling themselves engineers. To address this, the PE implemented several strategies:

1. Title protection for professional engineers (PE).
2. State certification in all 50 states.
3. Enforceable laws prohibiting anyone without a license from claiming the title or practicing as a PE.
4. Publishing a “Responsible Charge Statement,” among other measures.

These steps were instrumental in the success of the engineering industry. Many engineering firms have thrived, keeping up with wage inflation, with some companies earning millions annually. This is a model that stenographers could have followed—and arguably should have—if a similar strategy had been adopted.

Instead, the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) introduced its own certification, but only succeeded in getting 8 states to mandate it and 13 more to make it an optional requirement alongside their own state licensing. Unfortunately, this left 27 states without any form of licensing protection. This gap allowed the digital transcription movement to exploit the lack of regulation, starting with states like Florida, where they’ve completely dominated the market. Meanwhile, stenographers are left struggling with fewer opportunities.

The view that the NCRA’s actions (or lack thereof) have contributed to the decline of our industry isn’t popular, but it’s one worth considering. What the NCRA should have done was abandon its certification program and instead advocate for a standardized “CSR” (Certified Stenographic Reporter) license across all states. Had this happened, along with title protection and a Responsible Charge Statement in each state, we would have been much stronger, and the rise of digital transcription would have faced far more resistance.

While it’s likely illegal to require certification from a single monopolistic organization—something the PE didn’t attempt to do—this issue has yet to be addressed in court. The NCRA could push for a state license, but it cannot require a license from a third-party monopoly. This opens the door for potential antitrust lawsuits. Interestingly, it seems Christopher Day is in talks with someone who may be preparing to challenge the current system.

If this issue were to come to light, the response would be massive. Reporters who have spent years and significant amounts of money on certification exams, CEUs, and conferences would be up in arms. Such a challenge could drastically shake up our industry, and we’d see plenty of backlash from those invested in the current setup.

A possible solution to this issue would be for the NCRA to collaborate with state governments, professional organizations, and individual stenographers to establish a universally recognized, standardized “CSR” (Certified Stenographic Reporter) license across all states. This unified approach would ensure consistency in qualifications, title protection, and professional standards, strengthening the profession and making it more difficult for digital transcription methods to replace us. By working toward state-mandated CSR licenses and implementing a uniform “Responsible Charge Statement,” the NCRA could help solidify the role of human stenographers, offering greater legal and professional protection nationwide. This proactive, collaborative effort would not only restore the credibility of our profession but also secure its future by defending it against further encroachment. Rather than perpetuating cycles of infighting and divisiveness, we should come together as one force, advocating for a solution that benefits everyone. By setting aside differences, we can demonstrate the power of unity in protecting and growing the stenographic profession for years to come.