The Fear of Retribution in the Court Reporting Industry – Navigating a Culture of Silence and Fear

The court reporting industry is one of the most vital components of the judicial system. Without the accuracy and detail provided by court reporters, legal proceedings would lack a reliable record. Yet, despite the essential nature of their work, court reporters—whether freelance or official—find themselves living with the constant fear of retribution. This fear manifests in a number of ways, from concerns about complaining about attorneys who steal transcripts to apprehensions about agencies not paying for orders in a timely manner. These worries are compounded by a deep-seated fear of becoming an outcast in a small, tightly-knit community.

In a profession that demands precision, integrity, and trust, the concept of retribution in the court reporting industry has become insidious. It can feel as though one misstep or complaint could lead to a career-ruining consequence. As a result, many reporters remain silent, reluctant to speak out against unethical practices or wrongdoings. But what does this silence cost the industry, and what can be done to address it?

The Fear of Retaliation: An Inescapable Reality

The fear of retribution in the court reporting world is not just a theoretical concern—it’s a very real issue that affects the lives and careers of many reporters. This fear can be seen in several areas of the industry, particularly in relation to attorneys and agencies.

Attorneys Stealing Transcripts

One of the most common sources of fear is the theft of transcripts by attorneys. Many court reporters work hard to create an accurate, detailed record of proceedings, only to have their work taken without permission or proper compensation. This is particularly difficult for freelance reporters who rely on the completion of these transcripts for their income. When an attorney steals a transcript, they can use it without compensating the reporter for their time and expertise. However, the reporter might hesitate to confront the attorney, fearing that speaking up will result in a loss of future work opportunities.

This fear stems from a strong, almost unavoidable, reality in the industry: the risk of alienation. Freelance court reporters often rely on their relationships with attorneys to secure work. If an attorney is offended by a reporter’s complaint, that reporter may find themselves without future assignments. The power imbalance between court reporters and attorneys in this context is stark. Attorneys control the flow of work, and a single complaint could lead to significant career consequences for a reporter.

Agencies: Payment Delays and Inaction

Another area of fear revolves around agencies. Many court reporters face the frustration of agencies not paying for copy orders or taking an excessively long time to do so. In some cases, reporters may not even receive payment for their work at all. This is a particularly troubling situation for freelance reporters, who often live paycheck to paycheck. However, the fear of complaining to the agency can outweigh the desire for payment. Reporters may worry that by speaking up, they will be blacklisted or seen as difficult to work with.

Agencies, like attorneys, wield significant power in the court reporting world. They control assignments, dictate payment terms, and determine the amount of work a reporter receives. For freelancers, speaking out about unethical or unfair treatment could result in a loss of business. As a result, many reporters swallow their frustration and keep quiet, allowing the cycle of unfair practices to continue.

The Fear of Being an Outcast

While the fear of retribution from attorneys and agencies is tangible, there is another, more insidious aspect of this issue that haunts the court reporting community: the fear of becoming an outcast. The court reporting world is relatively small, especially in local markets. Reporters frequently work with the same attorneys, agencies, and colleagues, and networking events, conferences, and even casual interactions at the courthouse can be rife with gossip and whispers.

This sense of interconnectedness creates an environment where becoming an outcast can feel like a fate worse than failure. In small communities, being ostracized can lead to a severe reduction in work opportunities. Reporters who speak out against unethical practices or even those who complain about the industry’s challenges can quickly find themselves labeled as troublemakers. Gossip spreads quickly, and a single complaint can follow a reporter throughout their career, influencing future job prospects.

Moreover, court reporting schools, conferences, and social media groups can become breeding grounds for this type of behavior. Facebook groups, which are meant to foster collaboration and support, can sometimes devolve into spaces where people tear each other down. The intense focus on networking and personal relationships in the court reporting world can turn seemingly harmless criticisms into career-ending moments.

Being an outcast in such a tight-knit community is not just about the loss of work—it’s about the loss of belonging. In a profession where freelancers often work alone, finding a sense of camaraderie can be crucial. When that camaraderie is stripped away, it can leave court reporters feeling isolated and vulnerable.

The Psychology of Silence

The fear of retribution and ostracism can be understood through the lens of psychology. In any profession, fear of retaliation often leads individuals to remain silent, even when they are faced with unethical or unjust behavior. This phenomenon is well-documented in organizational psychology and is often referred to as the “chilling effect.” When individuals fear that speaking up will lead to negative consequences, they are less likely to report wrongdoing or advocate for change.

In the court reporting industry, the chilling effect is particularly pronounced. Freelance court reporters face the risk of losing not just income, but their entire livelihood, if they speak out. Official reporters, while employed by the court, still face the fear of retaliation in the form of social isolation, strained professional relationships, or even disciplinary actions if they speak out against the status quo.

The fear of being labeled a troublemaker or difficult to work with can make reporters hesitant to engage in discussions about the industry’s challenges or injustices. This silence can allow unethical practices to persist unchecked, ultimately harming the integrity of the profession as a whole.

Breaking the Silence: Steps Toward Change

Breaking the cycle of fear and retribution in the court reporting industry will require a multifaceted approach. The first step is to acknowledge the issue. By recognizing the toxic culture of silence that exists in the industry, court reporters, agencies, and attorneys can begin to address the problem.

One potential solution is the creation of more robust support networks for reporters. These networks can provide safe spaces for court reporters to voice their concerns and share their experiences without fear of retaliation. Online communities, professional organizations, and conferences can be platforms for fostering open dialogue and mutual support. Encouraging transparency and ethical behavior should become a priority for all stakeholders in the court reporting industry.

Furthermore, agencies and employers must take steps to ensure that court reporters are treated fairly and ethically. Establishing clear, transparent payment policies and addressing concerns promptly can help reduce the fear of retribution. Similarly, attorneys should be held accountable for their actions, particularly when it comes to stealing transcripts or failing to compensate reporters for their work.

In addition, greater emphasis should be placed on training and educating court reporters about their rights and the resources available to them. Knowing that they have options, and that they are not alone in facing challenges, can empower reporters to speak out against wrongdoing and fight for a fairer, more transparent industry.

Conclusion

The fear of retribution in the court reporting industry is a pervasive issue that has far-reaching consequences for both individual reporters and the profession as a whole. It creates a culture of silence that allows unethical practices to continue unchecked. By addressing this issue head-on, fostering supportive networks, and promoting transparency, we can begin to dismantle the culture of fear that holds so many court reporters back. It’s time for the industry to prioritize ethical practices, open dialogue, and mutual support, ensuring that no reporter ever has to choose between their livelihood and their integrity.

Court Reporter Anxiety – Managing Stress in a High-Stakes Career

Overview

Court reporting is a high-pressure profession that demands precision, speed, and focus. Whether you’re transcribing live testimony, legal proceedings, or depositions, the stakes are high. The job can require long hours, intense concentration, and the pressure of producing flawless transcripts — all of which can contribute to stress and anxiety.

Recent studies suggest that professionals in high-accountability roles, like court reporters, often experience higher levels of anxiety than the general workforce. If left unaddressed, anxiety can affect mental well-being and job performance — potentially leading to burnout, decreased accuracy, and reduced job satisfaction.

Fortunately, there are effective ways to manage the stress that comes with this line of work. In this guide, we explore common causes of anxiety in court reporters and share practical strategies to help you stay grounded, focused, and well.

Understanding Anxiety in Court Reporting

Court reporting requires intense focus, rapid processing, and a keen ear. Many reporters feel pressure to “get it all right,” knowing there’s little room for error in legal documentation. This can lead to anticipatory anxiety before proceedings, or lingering stress afterward — especially when new to the field.

Common symptoms of anxiety for court reporters might include:

  • Constant worry about making errors in transcripts
  • Physical symptoms like headaches, jaw tension, or back pain from prolonged sitting
  • Difficulty sleeping before big cases or deadlines
  • Feeling overwhelmed by caseload or tight turnaround times
  • Irritability or emotional exhaustion after high-stress sessions
  • Struggling to focus when fatigued or distracted
  • Negative self-talk after perceived mistakes
  • Mental burnout after consecutive high-stress days

Why Court Reporters Experience Anxiety

Several key stressors are built into the nature of court reporting. Understanding these can help reduce their impact:

1. Intense Concentration Over Long Periods

A full day of recording court proceedings without breaks can be both mentally and physically draining. Repetitive strain, eye fatigue, and the toll of intense focus all contribute to exhaustion and stress.

2. Pressure to Be Perfect

Court reporters are expected to capture every word spoken — often in fast-paced, overlapping conversations. A single missed word could impact a case, which creates a heavy sense of responsibility. That constant need for accuracy and attention to detail can cause anxiety over time.

3. Tight Deadlines and Heavy Workloads

Turnaround times for transcripts can be demanding, especially in busy jurisdictions or freelance environments. The pressure to produce high-quality transcripts quickly can build up, especially when balancing multiple assignments or juggling unpredictable schedules.

4. Emotional Exposure to Difficult Testimony

Though court reporters are not active participants in trials, they still hear and record traumatic or emotionally charged testimony. Over time, being exposed to difficult content — such as criminal cases or family disputes — can take a toll on mental health.

5. Lack of Recognition and Isolation

Many court reporters work behind the scenes, with little acknowledgment or interaction with peers. Remote or freelance reporters in particular may feel isolated, which can amplify anxiety. A lack of professional support or community adds to the emotional burden.

How Court Reporters Can Manage Anxiety

While the challenges are real, court reporters can build effective strategies to protect their mental health. Here are some tailored ways to reduce anxiety in this profession:

1. Seek Professional Help

If anxiety starts interfering with your work or daily life, don’t hesitate to reach out for help. Therapy can offer tools to manage stress and improve mental resilience. Signs it may be time to seek support include:

  • Trouble sleeping or relaxing
  • Constant worry about performance
  • Feeling emotionally numb or overly reactive
  • Panic or dread before assignments
  • Persistent physical discomfort

2. Prioritize Your Own Self-Care

Court reporters often sit for long hours and hyper-focus on others’ words — but it’s essential to turn that care inward. Stay hydrated, nourish your body, and prioritize regular breaks. Gentle stretching, balanced meals, and quality sleep form the foundation of your well-being.

3. Create a Pre-Session Routine

Prepare your mind before high-pressure assignments. A simple pre-session ritual — like a short walk, breathing exercise, or listening to calming music — can help reduce anticipatory anxiety and sharpen your focus.

4. Practice Mindfulness

Between proceedings or during breaks, take a few moments to ground yourself. Even 60 seconds of mindful breathing can help reset your nervous system and give you the calm clarity needed to continue working effectively.

5. Take Micro-Breaks Throughout the Day

Your brain needs time to reset. Between court sessions or while editing transcripts, pause for a few minutes to stretch, look away from your screen, or breathe deeply. These micro-breaks can help prevent burnout.

6. Connect with Fellow Reporters

Talking to others who understand your unique stressors can be incredibly validating. Whether through online forums, associations, or local meetups, sharing experiences with colleagues can make you feel less alone — and more supported.

7. Improve Time Management

Use productivity tools or scheduling systems to streamline your workload. Block off time for breaks, batch similar tasks, and give yourself realistic deadlines. Feeling more in control of your time can significantly ease anxiety.

8. Delegate or Ask for Help

If you’re part of a larger legal team or agency, don’t hesitate to ask for support when your load feels too heavy. You’re not expected to do it all — and sharing tasks reduces pressure and promotes collaboration.

9. Set Boundaries

You don’t have to say yes to every extra job or urgent deadline. Protect your time and energy by setting limits. Learn to decline work that could overload your schedule or compromise your mental health.

10. Try Journaling

Writing down your thoughts, worries, or reflections after a tough session can be therapeutic. Journaling helps release built-up tension and gives you perspective — allowing you to identify patterns that may trigger stress and develop strategies to manage them.

11. Create a Relaxing Space at Home

After absorbing the pressure of a courtroom or hearing room, coming home to a peaceful, calming environment can make all the difference. Set up a reading nook, burn a calming candle, or wind down with music. Make your space one that supports your recovery.

12. Develop an Unwind Routine

Just like athletes cool down after a game, court reporters need rituals to decompress after intense focus. Whether it’s a walk, yoga session, or just sipping tea in silence, give yourself time to mentally leave the courtroom behind.

You’re Your First Priority

As a court reporter, you carry the weight of precision and professionalism every day. But the most important record to keep is your own well-being. Court reporter anxiety is real — and addressing it allows you to continue excelling in your vital role.

Online mental health support, like Talkspace or similar services, offers flexible, confidential care that fits your demanding schedule. You deserve the same support and care that your job provides others. Prioritize yourself, so you can show up at your best — in and out of the courtroom.

THE RECORD IS NOT OPTIONAL – Despite AB 2664, Attorneys Still Challenge Freelance Reporters in Courtrooms

In April 2025, a freelance court reporter shared a troubling story: an attorney attempted to oppose the appointment of a reporter pro tempore during a hearing. Despite clear legal precedent, the attorney challenged the reporter’s right to be present simply because the reporter was a freelancer.

This should no longer be happening. California law settled this issue seven years ago with the passage of AB 2664, a bill designed to stop exactly this kind of obstruction. And yet, here we are.

The Law is Clear: AB 2664

Back on May 10, 2018, AB 2664—authored by Assemblymember Chris Holden and championed by the California Deposition Reporters Association (CalDRA)—was passed unanimously in the Assembly by a vote of 72 to 0. It was a landmark win for the court reporting profession, particularly for freelancers who were regularly being sidelined by attorneys using procedural tricks to prevent proceedings from being reported.

The bill’s core purpose was simple: to ensure that when one party in a case wants the record preserved, a reporter—whether staff or freelance—must be appointed. Attorneys could no longer refuse to stipulate to a reporter for the sake of strategy, delay, or intimidation.

“Help is on the way for freelancers and litigants who have been victims of lawyer hardball litigation tactics,” said CalDRA Legislative Chair Antonia Pulone at the time.

Pulone, who was the true architect behind the bill, poured her heart and soul into this legislation. It was her tireless work, strategic thinking, and deep understanding of both the legal and legislative worlds that ensured AB 2664 became law.

Yet, sadly, the profession lost this brilliant advocate far too soon. In August 2021, Toni Pulone passed away after a long battle with cancer. Her death left a profound void in the field of court reporting, and her absence has been felt deeply ever since. The fight for freelancers—particularly in the face of obstructionist tactics in court—has been harder without her leadership.

While then-CalDRA President Cheryl Haab was more visible in the role and quick to offer the message: “Freelancers, we’ve got your back,” those inside the organization knew who truly drove the effort. Pulone was the architect, the strategist, the one who rolled up her sleeves and got the bill across the finish line.

Toni’s passing has left the profession without one of its most skilled and passionate advocates, and the fight for freelancers has felt like it has been floundering without her guiding hand.

And Yet, in 2025…

Despite the clear legal mandate established by AB 2664, many freelancers still report being challenged in courtrooms—especially when appointed as reporters pro tempore. These objections are often made under the guise of formality or due process, but in practice, they serve to exclude qualified professionals and to prevent proceedings from being transcribed—an act that can have severe consequences for litigants seeking appeals or official records.

The tactic hasn’t changed: one party doesn’t want a record, so they try to block the appointment of a freelance reporter. The only difference now is that it’s illegal.

Whether through ignorance or indifference, some attorneys are still disregarding the law. That’s why reporters today need to be as vigilant and prepared as ever—armed with the knowledge of AB 2664 and ready to cite it when challenged.

What AB 2664 Actually Says

The heart of AB 2664 is that if even one party in a case wants a record of the proceedings, a reporter must be appointed. The court is not permitted to withhold this appointment based on whether both parties agree. This applies to official staff reporters as well as reporters pro tempore—so long as the reporter meets the qualifications.

Blocking a freelancer without valid cause is not just unprofessional—it’s a violation of state law.

Know Your Rights, Know the Law

For court reporters, particularly freelancers who work in court, memorizing AB 2664 is not optional. Print it, carry it, and be ready to present it. If you’re appearing in court and an attorney attempts to block your appointment, you need to be ready to respond confidently and with authority.

It’s unfortunate that in 2025, nearly a decade after this bill became law, court reporters still have to fight these battles—but they do. So be ready. Don’t let legal gamesmanship silence the record.

A Call to the Courts

This is not just a problem for court reporters—it’s a problem for the justice system. When attorneys are allowed to prevent the creation of an official record, they undermine transparency, due process, and the appellate system itself. Courts must be more proactive in enforcing AB 2664 and protecting the integrity of the judicial process.

If a party wants the record preserved, there should be no debate. The law has spoken.

The Fight Isn’t Over

CalDRA’s triumph in 2018 was a major step forward, but it wasn’t the end of the road. The continued obstruction of freelance reporters proves that vigilance, education, and enforcement are still needed.

As CalDRA said back then, “We’ve got your back.” But it’s also up to every reporter to know their rights, cite the law, and push back when challenged. You are not alone—and you are not without power.

The law is on your side. The record matters. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Tax Tides and Transcript Troubles – How Southern California’s Hikes Hit Court Reporters

​On April 1, 2025, several cities across Southern California implemented sales tax increases aimed at bolstering public services and addressing community challenges. Notably, Los Angeles County’s sales tax rose from 9.5% to 9.75% following the approval of Measure A by voters in November 2024, with the additional revenue earmarked for homelessness services and affordable housing initiatives. Similarly, Seal Beach in Orange County increased its sales tax by 0.5%, raising the rate from 8.75% to 9.25%. Other cities, such as South El Monte and Fountain Valley, also saw their sales tax rates climb to 10.75% and 8.75%, respectively.​

These tax adjustments have sparked discussions among various professional communities, including court reporters in the region. Court reporters, who play a crucial role in the legal system by transcribing spoken or recorded speech into written form, often operate as independent contractors or small business owners. Consequently, changes in tax policies can have significant implications for their operational costs and overall financial well-being.​

Impact on Operational Expenses

For court reporters, the increase in sales tax translates to higher costs for essential business expenditures. Equipment such as stenotype machines, computers, and specialized software are integral to their profession. With the elevated sales tax rates, purchasing or upgrading this equipment becomes more expensive. For instance, acquiring a new stenotype machine priced at $5,000 would now incur an additional $12.50 in sales tax in Los Angeles County due to the 0.25% increase. While this may seem modest in isolation, the cumulative effect across multiple purchases can be substantial.​

Furthermore, court reporters often require office supplies, recording devices, and other materials to perform their duties effectively. The increased sales tax applies to these items as well, further inflating operational costs. For those who maintain a physical office space, expenses related to office furniture and equipment are also subject to the higher tax rate.​

Effect on Professional Services

In addition to tangible goods, court reporters may utilize various professional services, such as equipment maintenance, software subscriptions, and continuing education courses. Depending on the taxability of these services, the increased sales tax could result in higher fees. For example, a software subscription that previously cost $1,000 annually would now carry an additional $2.50 in sales tax in areas with a 0.25% increase. While some service providers may absorb these costs, others might pass them on to consumers, thereby affecting court reporters’ expenses.​

Potential for Increased Client Fees

To offset the rise in operational costs, court reporters might consider adjusting their service fees. However, this approach requires careful consideration, as higher fees could impact client relationships and competitiveness in the market. Legal professionals and agencies that rely on court reporting services may be sensitive to price changes, especially if they operate within strict budgetary constraints. Therefore, court reporters must balance the need to maintain profitability with the potential risk of losing clients to competitors who may not adjust their pricing structures.​

Broader Economic Implications

The sales tax increases in Southern California are part of broader efforts by local governments to address pressing issues such as homelessness and affordable housing. While the additional revenue generated is intended to fund vital community services, it also places an added financial burden on residents and businesses. For court reporters, who often function as small business owners or independent contractors, these tax hikes underscore the importance of strategic financial planning and adaptability in a changing economic landscape.​

Strategies for Mitigation

To navigate the financial impact of the sales tax increases, court reporters can consider several strategies:

  1. Advance Purchases: Where feasible, purchasing necessary equipment and supplies before anticipated tax hikes can result in cost savings.​
  2. Expense Management: Regularly reviewing and optimizing business expenses can help identify areas to reduce costs without compromising service quality.​
  3. Client Communication: Transparent discussions with clients about potential fee adjustments and the reasons behind them can foster understanding and maintain trust.​
  4. Professional Associations: Engaging with professional organizations can provide access to resources, advocacy, and collective bargaining opportunities that may help mitigate financial challenges.​

Conclusion

The recent sales tax increases in Southern California present both challenges and opportunities for court reporters in the region. While higher operational costs are an immediate concern, these changes also highlight the need for proactive financial management and adaptability. By implementing strategic measures and staying informed about policy developments, court reporters can continue to provide essential services while navigating the evolving economic environment.

Court Reporter Payment Delays – What California Law Says and How to Respond When Agencies Stall

In the world of freelance court reporting, payment disputes are an all-too-common headache. One of the most frustrating scenarios is when a court reporting agency delays payment to the reporter because they themselves haven’t been paid by the attorney or law firm requesting the transcript. For years, this practice left reporters in financial limbo, despite fulfilling their duties and delivering transcripts on time. However, recent legislative changes in California have made it clear: this practice is now illegal — at least within the Golden State.

If you’re a court reporter working on California cases — even if you live and work in another state — here’s what you need to know about your rights, what the law says, and how you can take action when agencies dodge timely payment.

The Problem: “We’ll Pay You When We Get Paid”

Many court reporting agencies have operated on a flawed (and arguably unethical) model: they don’t pay the reporter for copies or original transcripts until they get paid by their client. This might sound like a reasonable business practice on the surface, but for independent contractors — many of whom rely on regular payment to pay rent, health insurance, or other bills — it’s an unstable, unfair, and potentially exploitative situation.

Some agencies may take 60, 90, or even 120 days to pay, if at all. Worse still, some reporters find themselves chasing agencies for months with no clear answer or transparency, especially when dealing with out-of-state or international firms.

The Legal Shift: California Senate Bill 241

In response to these widespread concerns, California Senate Bill 241 (SB 241) was passed and signed into law. This bill provides long-needed protection for freelance deposition reporters working in California.

Here’s what SB 241 mandates:

  • Prompt payment: Court reporting firms must pay reporters within a reasonable timeframe — typically 30 days from the date of delivery or per the terms of the agreement — regardless of whether the agency has received payment from its client.
  • No contingency-based payments: Payment cannot be delayed based on the agency’s own cash flow, collections, or payment status with the attorney or party who ordered the transcript.
  • Freelancer rights enforcement: Reporters can file complaints with the Court Reporters Board of California if agencies violate these rules.
  • Statewide application: If a case is venued in California — even if the reporter or agency is out-of-state — California law still applies.

This legislation aims to uphold the dignity and financial security of freelance professionals, especially as the industry trends toward gig work and independent contracting.

Read the Fine Print: Legal Protection Requires Action

While SB 241 is a major win, it’s important to understand its limitations. The law establishes what should happen — but it doesn’t guarantee that reporters will automatically be paid. In fact:

  • There is no built-in enforcement mechanism that forces agencies to comply. If an agency fails to pay on time, it’s up to the reporter to pursue legal remedies.
  • In most cases, the reporter must file a civil claim — often in small claims court — to recover their fees.
  • Having a contract or at least written documentation (such as an invoice, email confirmation, or terms agreement) is essential. Without this, enforcing your rights may be difficult.

So while the law is on your side, you still need to protect yourself proactively. Don’t assume that citing SB 241 will resolve every issue without follow-through.

Why This Matters

Let’s be clear: reporters are professionals, not lenders. They provide a highly specialized and critical service to the legal system. When they deliver accurate and timely transcripts, they’ve completed their job. Holding their compensation hostage while waiting on law firms to pay is not only unfair — it’s now illegal in jurisdictions like California.

Further, delayed payment isn’t just an inconvenience. For many freelancers, it can mean falling behind on bills, being unable to make equipment upgrades, or choosing between health insurance and groceries. Inconsistent pay undermines the sustainability of the profession and pushes skilled reporters out of the industry.

What You Can Do If an Agency Delays Payment

If you’ve found yourself in the unfortunate position of waiting — and waiting — for a check, here’s how you can proceed:

1. Review the Case Details

  • Was the deposition conducted for a California case?
  • Was the agency operating in California or facilitating a deposition governed by CA laws?
  • Was there a clear agreement or invoice with payment terms?

If yes, then California’s payment laws likely apply, even if you’re based in another state.

2. Document Everything

Keep a thorough paper trail:

  • Date transcript was delivered
  • Date invoice was sent
  • All email or text communication
  • Any acknowledgment from the agency regarding receipt

This documentation will be crucial if you escalate the matter.

3. Follow Up Regularly

Send friendly but firm reminders. A typical escalation might look like:

  • Week 1: Send a follow-up asking for payment status.
  • Week 2-3: Reiterate your payment terms and include the delivery date.
  • Week 4: Notify the agency that you’re considering further action if payment isn’t made within a set number of days.

4. Send a Demand Letter

If it’s been 30 days or more and you still haven’t been paid, send a formal demand letter. This should include:

  • Summary of the work performed
  • Total amount due
  • Date payment was due
  • A final deadline before further steps are taken (e.g., reporting to regulatory boards, small claims court, or collections)

5. File a Complaint

If the agency is based in or working on a case venued in California, you can file a complaint with the Court Reporters Board of California. Visit their website for a complaint form and submission guidelines.

6. Consider Small Claims Court

If the amount owed is significant (and especially if the agency is based in the U.S.), you might consider filing in small claims court. Many freelancers have successfully recovered fees this way, especially when backed by a well-documented case.

How to Protect Yourself in the Future

Unfortunately, these situations can be more common than they should be. Here are a few ways to protect yourself moving forward:

  • Vet agencies carefully: Look for payment reviews from other reporters. Ask around in reporter forums or state associations.
  • Use written agreements: Spell out payment terms, deadlines, and consequences for non-payment in writing.
  • Invoice immediately: Don’t wait — invoice as soon as the job is done.
  • Set late fees: Include reasonable late fees in your contracts to discourage delays.
  • Avoid red flags: If an agency is vague about payment terms or evades questions, think twice before accepting the job.

Beyond California: A Nationwide Need for Reform

While California’s SB 241 is a step in the right direction, there are 49 other states where court reporters still face the same outdated and unfair payment practices. The lack of consistent nationwide protection leaves too many freelancers vulnerable to delays, non-payment, and financial stress.

It’s time for a broader conversation — and nationwide reform — that ensures all court reporters, no matter where they live or work, are paid fairly and promptly for their services. Until then, reporters in other states will need to rely on contracts, community knowledge, and legal action to protect themselves.

Final Thoughts

California’s new law is a major step forward in protecting freelance court reporters from unfair and exploitative payment practices. But laws only work when they’re enforced — and that means reporters need to be empowered with information and ready to act when their rights are violated.

Whether you’re based in California or simply covering a California case, don’t let agencies string you along with vague promises or excuses. You’ve done the work — now you’re entitled to get paid.

If you’re dealing with a slow-paying agency now and need help crafting a professional follow-up or demand letter, feel free to reach out. You’re not alone, and you deserve to be compensated for your work.

The Rise of Private Gatekeepers in Freelance Court Reporting

For many court reporters, especially freelancers, online groups have become vital tools for finding work. Facebook groups, listservs, and community forums often act as informal job boards where agencies or reporters post upcoming needs for coverage—depositions, hearings, and trial work. In theory, these groups are a great way to match demand with available talent. In practice, however, some of these spaces are becoming more about social cliques than professional networks.

Reporters have complained that certain group admins—who may be working reporters themselves—are using their position to play favorites, distributing jobs to friends or withholding opportunities from those they dislike or deem unworthy. One particular concern involves long-form trial work, which can be lucrative and career-defining. Rather than allowing open bidding or fair rotation, these jobs are allegedly being handed off to a select few, often behind closed doors.

The Problem with “CSR Brokers” and Pay-to-Play Gatekeeping

This kind of job brokering has a name in the industry: “CSR brokers.” These individuals act like mini-agencies within the freelance ecosystem. They’re not necessarily licensed agencies, but often serve as middlemen—grabbing a job lead from a client or platform, then redistributing it to another reporter (sometimes for a cut of the pay).

But there’s a deeper layer to the issue. According to multiple freelance reporters, these so-called gatekeepers aren’t just handing out jobs to friends—they’re also receiving kickbacks from agencies in exchange for help covering jobs. These perks can include priority access to higher-paying assignments, exclusive job leads, or other forms of compensation that aren’t made transparent to the rest of the group.

In effect, some of these moderators and brokers are operating under a pay-to-play system, leveraging their group control for personal gain. That’s not just unethical—it might also be legally questionable, particularly if the group presents itself as a neutral professional forum, but is functioning more like a closed-loop business with under-the-table deals.

Is It Legal to Exclude People From Job Alerts?

The legality of these exclusionary and self-serving practices depends on a number of factors, but there are strong arguments to suggest that such behavior could be unlawful—especially if the group or its moderators are making money or functioning like a business.

Discriminatory Practices: If someone is excluded from job opportunities based on protected characteristics—such as age, race, gender, or disability—that’s a clear violation of anti-discrimination laws. Even if exclusion is based on personal opinion or hearsay, the reporter being denied work could potentially argue defamation or interference with prospective economic advantage.

Unfair Competition: When moderators or CSR brokers manipulate access to job postings to favor friends or to secure personal financial gain, it may fall under the category of unfair business practices. In California, for example, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is broad enough to potentially cover these situations, especially if they result in economic harm to another working professional.

Labor Law Considerations: If a group is operating as a quasi-employment board and taking compensation or perks for placements, it may fall under labor board jurisdiction. Misclassifying the relationship, or failing to operate as a registered agency, could open the door to regulatory consequences.

Professional Harm and Industry-Wide Consequences

The impact of favoritism and exclusion goes beyond individual hurt or lost income. It affects the credibility of the entire industry. Court reporting is a profession rooted in trust, accuracy, and impartiality. When job opportunities become subject to popularity contests or social alliances—or worse, when group leaders are profiting from their control over access—it weakens the foundation of that trust.

Furthermore, young or newly licensed reporters—who often rely heavily on these groups to break into the field—are particularly vulnerable. They may find themselves permanently sidelined not because of lack of skill, but because of who they know (or don’t know). This discourages new talent, reinforces toxic hierarchies, and contributes to burnout among those trying to make an honest living.

Transparency, Accountability, and Reform

So what can be done? Here are a few ways the industry—and those within it—can move toward a more fair and legal model of job sharing:

  1. Open Job Boards: Professional organizations and independent platforms should commit to open-access job boards, where all qualified reporters can see and apply for work without discrimination.
  2. Moderator Ethics Guidelines: Group moderators should be held to clear standards of fairness, transparency, and accountability. If a group presents itself as a professional network, it must be managed professionally—with disclosures if financial incentives are involved.
  3. Agency Oversight: States should consider implementing or strengthening oversight for those who broker court reporting jobs without operating as licensed agencies. If you’re making money by controlling access to work, you should be subject to the same rules as a registered business.
  4. Legal Action: Excluded reporters may need to explore legal remedies. This could involve consulting labor attorneys, filing complaints with professional boards, or even pursuing civil claims in cases of economic harm.
  5. Community Advocacy: Reporters should unite to expose favoritism, call out unethical practices, and support peers who’ve been unfairly treated. Peer-led initiatives that promote transparency can go a long way in restoring trust.

Final Thoughts

Court reporters are the guardians of the record—an essential part of the justice system. They deserve an industry that treats them fairly and transparently. While informal job networks can be a great way to connect professionals with opportunities, they must not become tools of exclusion, favoritism, or secret financial arrangements. If someone is qualified, certified, and available, they should have an equal shot at the job. Anything less isn’t just unethical—it could be illegal.

The path forward requires awareness, accountability, and collective action. Freelancers shouldn’t have to rely on favoritism or backroom deals to feed their families. It’s time for the court reporting community to demand better: end the pay-to-play gatekeeping, stop the favoritism, and restore fairness to the profession.

Inside the Mind of a Court Reporter – Between Transcripts and Grocery Lists

When people think of court reporters, they often imagine eagle-eyed professionals sitting silently in the courtroom, capturing every word with robotic precision and hyper-focus. What they don’t imagine is that, while fingers are flying across the keys, the court reporter is mentally meal-prepping, wondering what their dog is doing at home, or trying to remember if they sent that text they meant to send earlier. But here’s the truth: we court reporters are human. Highly trained professionals, yes—but still, human.

There’s a kind of magic in what we do. We’re expected to produce a flawless record of everything said, often in chaotic, emotionally-charged, or technically dense environments. And we do—day in and day out. But while the outside world thinks we’re hanging on every word, the reality is much more complex. So, what are court reporters really thinking while we’re on the record?

The Myth of Constant Focus

Let’s set the record straight: we’re not always fully mentally present during every moment of testimony. That might shock attorneys, judges, and the occasional juror, but it’s the honest truth. Our hands are tracking every word, every cough, every stammer—and it’s all there. But our brains? Sometimes, they’re miles away.

There’s a reason for that. Stenographic reporting is, in many ways, muscle memory and reflex. It’s like a musician playing a song they’ve practiced for years; their hands know what to do. Similarly, our fingers know the rhythm and flow of speech, and often, they take over while our minds drift. In fact, it’s sometimes easier to perform well without being emotionally or mentally involved in the testimony. Being too focused can actually trip us up—especially when content is difficult, fast-paced, or emotionally charged.

Testimony vs. Tacos & The Wandering Mind

So where do our minds go? Everywhere.

One moment we’re in a deposition, the next we’re building a grocery list: “Eggs, spinach, oat milk…” Someone says something mildly amusing and suddenly we’re thinking about that one text we forgot to send or the friend we haven’t called back. Sometimes it’s as mundane as wondering whether our dog misses us or how our kid’s day is going. Other times we’re silently fuming over the pace of a fast talker, mentally begging them to slow down so we can catch up without sweating.

And still, the record is pristine. We capture it. We always do.

One of the best indicators that we’ve mentally checked out is the classic “Can you read that back?” moment. If you’ve never had your heart drop into your stomach when someone says that—while you realize you have no memory of what was just said—you’re not really a court reporter. But here’s the kicker: when we go back and read it, it’s there. Clean, accurate, perfect. It’s one of the bizarre superpowers of this job: we can type without thinking, and the record is still there.

So, Do You Have an Opinion?

Ah, the dreaded question from attorneys: “What do you think?” or “How do you think that went?”

We get it often. Sometimes it’s innocent curiosity. Other times, it’s strategic fishing. But here’s our line—and most of us stick to it: We don’t give opinions.

Ethically, we can’t. And practically? We’re just not paying enough attention to have a meaningful opinion. Not because we’re negligent, but because our job is not to analyze. It’s to capture. And trust me, there’s a huge difference.

Some of us have learned the hard way. One court reporter shared that they knew someone who got burned because an attorney asked a casual opinion, and that tiny comment turned into a credibility issue later. Since then, many of us have adopted a firm stance: “I wasn’t listening,” or “I don’t pay attention to what’s said, only how fast it’s said.”

Sometimes we break the tension with humor: “I was thinking about dinner,” or “Honestly, I was planning my weekend.” It throws attorneys off at first, but it’s true—and it’s safer that way. Even when we do have opinions (and let’s be real, we do), it’s better to keep them to ourselves. Because opinions can entangle us in ways we don’t want to be entangled.

When We Are Fully Present

Of course, there are times when we’re 100% dialed in. Fast talkers. Difficult accents. Expert testimony on subjects like medicine or engineering that make our heads spin. Those moments demand our attention—no drifting allowed. We’re fully engaged, hanging on every syllable, praying we don’t drop a word.

Interpreted depositions are another beast altogether. Many reporters say their minds wander more during those because of the repetition—it’s easy to mentally check out during the interpreted back-and-forth. Some even admit to checking emails or texts in the background (yes, really), though that’s obviously a personal line every reporter navigates differently.

And then there’s humor. Say something funny in the room and suddenly, we’re there with you. Our ears perk up. We’ll remember that joke for days.

The Irony of Inattention

It still amazes many of us how well we do our jobs even when our minds are elsewhere. It’s a surreal feeling to realize you haven’t processed what was said in the last 30 minutes, but you know it’s all right there in the transcript. There’s a deep trust we develop in our training, our skillset, and our shorthand brain-finger connection.

Some of us even know reporters who play solitaire during civil trials. Shocking? Maybe. But the record? Flawless. That’s the reality of a job where muscle memory meets multitasking.

Final Thoughts

What are court reporters really thinking when we’re on the record? Sometimes we’re deeply focused. Sometimes we’re building a grocery list or wondering if our dog is lonely. But always, we’re doing our jobs—and doing them well.

When attorneys ask us for opinions, the best response is usually, “I wasn’t listening,” or “You talked fast, but you made my job easy.” It’s the safest, truest thing we can say. Because at the end of the day, we’re not participants—we’re observers. And sometimes not even that. We’re the silent keepers of the record, working behind the scenes with fingers flying and minds wandering, capturing everything and judging nothing.

And honestly? It’s kind of amazing what we can do.

Freelance vs. Official Court Reporting – Weighing the Pros and Cons for Your Career Path

Choosing between a career as a freelance court reporter and becoming an official court reporter is one of the biggest decisions you’ll make in this field. Both paths come with unique benefits and serious trade-offs — and which one is best for you depends largely on your personality, financial situation, lifestyle, and where you are in your career and personal life.

If you’re currently freelancing and considering taking the plunge into officialdom, or just trying to make sense of what each path might hold, you’re not alone. Many reporters have walked this road before and shared their insights. Let’s dive deep into the real pros and cons of both freelance and official court reporting work, informed by decades of collective experience in the field.

The Freedom and Hustle of Freelance Life

Pros of Freelancing:

  • Flexibility. This is the number-one reason many reporters go freelance. You choose your schedule, your clients, the type of work you take on, and how much you want to work. Want to work only Tuesdays and Thursdays? Done. Need to take two weeks off in July? Just don’t schedule anything.
  • Higher Earning Potential. With the right clients and a good workflow, freelancers can make serious money — especially on high-profile or expedited cases. Realtime work and large-volume jobs can boost income significantly.
  • Variety and Independence. Freelancing often means you’re in new locations, with new attorneys, and hearing new stories daily. For those who get bored easily or dislike the routine of the same courtroom and judge, this is a major plus.
  • Family Flexibility. Many freelancers value being able to attend their children’s school events, take care of elderly parents, or simply enjoy more autonomy over their personal lives.

Cons of Freelancing:

  • No Guaranteed Income. Some weeks you’re flush with work. Others, it’s crickets. Cancellations happen. Clients delay payments. Budgeting becomes more complex and inconsistent.
  • Self-Employment Burdens. You’re on your own for taxes, insurance, retirement planning, and equipment. It requires strong financial discipline and business sense.
  • Work Creep. Many freelancers find themselves working nights and weekends to meet transcript deadlines. There’s no PTO, so if you’re not working, you’re not earning.
  • Client Hassles. You may have to chase down invoices or deal with unprofessional attorneys. It’s all part of running your own show.

The Structure and Stability of Officialdom

Pros of Being an Official:

  • Reliable Paycheck. Whether court is light or packed, your salary is stable. That kind of consistency can be a huge relief, especially during economic downturns or personal emergencies.
  • Benefits. Many official positions come with health insurance, paid time off, pensions, and retirement options. For many, this is the tipping point.
  • Paid Time Off. You’re not losing money when you go on vacation, get sick, or take a mental health day — a luxury freelancers don’t usually have.
  • Court Support. You’re not responsible for collecting payments or chasing invoices. The court system handles that, and judges back you up when needed.

Cons of Being an Official:

  • Less Flexibility. You’re working someone else’s schedule — and that someone is usually a judge. If your judge is heavy-handed with the gavel or likes running late sessions, expect long days with limited downtime.
  • Judicial Personalities. The judge you’re assigned to can make or break the experience. A supportive judge who values your work is a dream. One who treats you like a clerical tool? Not so much.
  • Transcription Demands. While you may not chase jobs, you might be buried in transcript orders — especially if you’re in court every day with minimal time to actually transcribe.
  • Job Security vs. Change. If you love variety and moving around, official work might feel repetitive. Same building, same courtroom, same faces every day.

The Human Element: What the Community Says

Veterans of both sides emphasize one truth: There is no universal “best” — only what fits best for you at the time.

Many reporters freelance early in their careers or while raising children, then transition to official work for the stability and benefits. Others do the reverse: tired of court politics or seeking entrepreneurial freedom, they leave officialdom for the gig-based lifestyle of freelancing.

One reporter with 46+ years in the field summarized it this way:

“At each stage of my life and career, the choice I made at that time was the best fit. Neither choice has to be forever.”

Several common themes emerged in personal reflections:

  • Officials often seem more “settled” and financially secure.
  • Freelancers tend to be more adventurous, social, and independent.
  • The quality of your judge and colleagues can vastly influence job satisfaction.
  • Benefits like pensions and insurance carry more weight as you age.
  • Flexibility is golden, but it’s not without its price — in stress and hustle.

Zoom, Tech, and the Post-Covid Landscape

Technology has added another layer to the conversation. Zoom has been a game-changer, especially during the pandemic, offering new flexibility for freelancers. Many reporters now prefer remote work, while others miss the courtroom energy.

That said, some officials note that their schedules have become more flexible post-Covid, with less travel and more administrative support for remote proceedings. This could blur the lines between freelance and official lifestyles in some jurisdictions.

How to Choose What’s Right for You

Here are a few key questions to guide your decision:

  • Do you value freedom or stability more right now?
  • Do you need health insurance or a pension plan?
  • How disciplined are you financially?
  • Do you enjoy managing a business, or do you prefer just focusing on your writing?
  • Can you tolerate unpredictable workloads, or do you need a steady paycheck?
  • Are you more energized by variety or structure?

The good news? You don’t have to pick one forever. Many reporters have shifted back and forth over their careers. Think of your career path as a flexible one — just like the freelance schedule you’re trying to weigh.

Final Thoughts

Freelance or official, court reporting is a profession built on skill, resilience, and adaptability. Your path may evolve over time, and that’s okay. Listen to your instincts, consider your current life needs, and know that there’s no “wrong” choice — just what works best for you now.

And if you’re still unsure? Try talking to people doing both. Ask to shadow an official for a day. Spend time auditing your freelance workflow. Sometimes the best answer comes not from a pros and cons list — but from how you feel in the rhythm of the job.

Whatever path you choose, may it bring you purpose, security, and a few good laughs along the way.

Antitrust Concerns in Court Reporting and Navigating the Legal Landscape

Introduction

Antitrust laws exist to ensure fair competition in the marketplace. While court reporting may not seem like a typical industry subject to antitrust scrutiny, it is not exempt from these legal principles. Recent discussions within professional associations, such as the Texas Court Reporters Association (TEXDRA), highlight the importance of understanding what court reporters, including freelancers, can and cannot discuss without violating federal laws. This article delves into antitrust concerns in the court reporting profession and provides guidance on navigating these legal boundaries.

Understanding Antitrust Laws

Antitrust laws, particularly the Sherman Act, are designed to prevent anti-competitive practices such as price-fixing, monopolization, and collusion among competitors. In court reporting, these laws ensure that firms and individual reporters compete fairly, benefiting both consumers and the industry as a whole.

Common Antitrust Issues in Court Reporting

Several antitrust concerns arise in the field of court reporting, including:

  1. Price Fixing – Agreements between firms or individuals to set prices for court reporting services can violate federal laws. Even informal discussions about standard pricing could be interpreted as collusion.
  2. Boycotting Competitors – Encouraging or organizing a group boycott against a business that provides court reporting services, including those using digital recording, may be considered an illegal restraint of trade.
  3. Market Allocation – Agreements to divide markets, clients, or geographic areas among court reporters or firms are unlawful.
  4. Exclusive Agreements – Contracts that unfairly restrict competition by preventing certain court reporters or firms from working in specific areas could raise antitrust concerns.

TEXDRA’s Position and Guidelines

TEXDRA has taken a clear stance against digital recording as an alternative to traditional stenographic court reporting. However, they also emphasize compliance with antitrust laws by cautioning members against discussions or actions that could lead to violations. Their guidelines prohibit:

  • Any communication that might suggest coordinated pricing, wage agreements, or market division.
  • Encouraging boycotts of competitors, including those using digital recording.
  • Agreements that limit access to the market for other professionals.

What Freelancers Can and Cannot Discuss

Permissible Discussions:

  • General industry trends, such as the demand for court reporting services.
  • Non-price-related service improvements, such as technology advancements in stenography.
  • Legislative efforts that promote fair competition and transparency in court reporting.
  • Personal experiences without suggesting collective action to restrict trade.

Prohibited Discussions:

  • Setting or agreeing upon standard rates for services.
  • Discussing profit margins or financial performance of competitors.
  • Coordinating a refusal to work with certain clients or businesses.
  • Agreeing to divide work based on geography, clients, or firms.
  • Publicly Posting Rates: Is It Allowed?
  • A common question among court reporters is whether publicly sharing rates on websites constitutes an antitrust violation.
  • The answer is no — simply posting your rates publicly on your own website is not a violation of antitrust laws, as long as it is done independently.
  • Public transparency about pricing is legal and can be a valuable marketing tool. However, trouble arises when competitors coordinate or agree on pricing strategies, even informally.
  • Examples of What’s Allowed:
  • ✅ A freelancer independently posts their rates online to inform potential clients.
  • ✅ Multiple reporters each choose to post rates online without consulting each other.
  • Examples of What Violates Antitrust Laws:
  • 🚫 A group agrees in a private forum to raise or align their rates, then posts them.
  • 🚫 A discussion where someone says, “Let’s all keep rates at $X to avoid undercutting.”
  • The key is independence. Pricing decisions must be made individually, without any form of coordination or agreement among competitors.

The Role of Professional Associations

While organizations like TEXDRA play a crucial role in advocating for court reporters, they must also ensure compliance with antitrust laws. Their guidelines and legal oversight help prevent members from inadvertently violating these laws through discussions or collective actions.

Legal Implications of Violating Antitrust Laws

Violating antitrust laws can lead to severe consequences, including:

  • Fines and Penalties – The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces antitrust laws and can impose substantial fines on individuals and organizations found guilty of violations.
  • Lawsuits – Competitors or clients who suffer damages due to antitrust violations may file lawsuits seeking compensation.
  • Reputational Damage – Being associated with anti-competitive practices can harm a court reporter’s or firm’s professional standing.

Best Practices for Staying Compliant

To ensure compliance with antitrust laws, court reporters should:

  1. Avoid Sensitive Discussions – Refrain from discussing pricing, market allocation, or competitor exclusion in professional settings.
  2. Use Caution in Online Forums – Be mindful of what is posted in professional group discussions, as online communications can be used as evidence in antitrust cases.
  3. Seek Legal Guidance – If unsure whether a discussion or business practice might violate antitrust laws, consulting with an attorney can provide clarity.
  4. Participate in Compliance Training – Understanding antitrust laws through professional development opportunities can help prevent inadvertent violations.
  5. Antitrust Compliance FAQ for Freelancers
  6. Q: Can I post my rates on my website?
  7. A: Yes, as long as you do so independently and without coordinating with competitors.
  8. Q: Can I talk to other reporters about how much I charge?
  9. A: No. Discussing rates, discounts, or salary information with competitors could be considered price-fixing.
  10. Q: What if someone in a group chat suggests we all raise our rates together?
  11. A: Do not engage. This type of conversation could be used as evidence of collusion and is a violation of antitrust laws.
  12. Q: Can we share opinions about bad clients or agencies?
  13. A: Be cautious. Complaining could cross into territory that looks like a coordinated boycott. Focus on personal experiences rather than suggesting collective action.
  14. Q: Can we collaborate on educational events or skill-sharing?
  15. A: Absolutely. Sharing knowledge and improving the profession is encouraged, as long as it doesn’t involve pricing or market manipulation.

Conclusion

Antitrust concerns in court reporting are real and must be taken seriously. While professional associations like TEXDRA advocate for the industry, they also emphasize the importance of compliance with federal laws. Freelancers and firms should be mindful of their discussions and business practices to avoid any legal repercussions. By staying informed and adhering to best practices, court reporters can ensure they operate within the bounds of the law while maintaining a competitive and fair industry.

Steno Still Stands Strong

In the world of court reporting, accuracy isn’t just a preference—it’s a legal necessity. Capturing the spoken word verbatim in judicial proceedings is a critical responsibility, and over the years, three primary methods have emerged to fulfill this role: the steno machine, the steno mask (also known as voice writing), and the newest contender, AI-powered automated speech recognition (ASR). While all three methods aim to transcribe spoken dialogue, not all are created equal—nor are they equally accepted under the law.

Currently, only two of these methods—the steno machine and the steno mask—are backed by certification requirements, rendering them legally acceptable in 24 states across the United States. Among them, the steno machine stands tall as the gold standard, praised for its precision, reliability, and unmatched ability to produce instant readbacks.

The Steno Machine: Precision in Motion

The steno machine is a specialized keyboard that allows trained court reporters to press multiple keys simultaneously, generating phonetic codes representing words, syllables, and phrases. This shorthand is then translated into English through software. Historically, these codes were imprinted on paper, but now they’re stored digitally, allowing for fast retrieval and editing.

What truly sets the steno machine apart is its ability to provide instant readback—an essential function in any courtroom. When a judge or attorney requests a statement to be repeated, the stenographer can immediately scroll through their steno notes and read back the exact words spoken. Even in instances where a word or phrase isn’t properly translated by the software, a machine writer can rely on the steno outlines to interpret and deliver an accurate account, thanks to the visual imprint (or shadowing) left on the paper or digital display.

This capability is unique to the steno machine. It’s not only the fastest method, but also the most accountable, allowing real-time correction and verification on the spot.

The Steno Mask Writer: A Compromised Backup

Steno mask writers—or voice writers—speak directly into a hand-held, soundproof mask equipped with a microphone, repeating verbatim everything said in the courtroom. Their speech is translated into text by speech recognition software. While this method has gained some ground, especially in states like Georgia, it still lacks the immediacy and self-sufficiency of the steno machine.

When an error occurs or a readback is requested, the voice writer can’t rely on a visual shorthand outline. Instead, they must play back their audio recording—of their own voice only, not ambient sound—delaying the process and compromising real-time accuracy. This latency could be critical during high-stakes proceedings where every second counts.

Moreover, the accuracy of this method hinges heavily on the reporter’s personal voice dictionary and their experience in building and maintaining it. An underdeveloped or poorly trained dictionary can lead to missed words, misinterpretations, or delays in transcription—none of which are acceptable in a legal environment.

AI/ASR: The Future That’s Not Quite Ready

Artificial intelligence and automated speech recognition (ASR) have burst into the courtroom tech scene in recent years, especially following the widespread adoption of virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Companies like Zoom have partnered with ASR developers to provide live transcriptions of remote hearings and depositions. At first glance, this seems like an ideal solution—cost-effective, high-speed, and always available.

But dig a little deeper, and the flaws are glaring.

ASR technology currently averages around 76% accuracy, far below the standard required for legal proceedings where precision is non-negotiable. These AI systems cannot discern context, handle multiple speakers reliably, or identify nuanced legal jargon. Furthermore, ASR systems are unmanned, meaning no human is monitoring or correcting the output in real-time. If an error occurs, there’s no accountability and no way to provide an instant readback—a serious drawback in a courtroom setting.

Worse yet, there’s no one to hold responsible for transcription errors. If a vital statement is misrepresented in a transcript, who is liable? The software? The vendor? Without a certified, accountable human being responsible for the transcript, the legal integrity of the record is severely compromised.

Certification: The Backbone of Legal Verbatim Reporting

Certification exists for a reason—it ensures a reporter has met rigorous standards for accuracy, speed, knowledge of legal procedures, grammar, and ethics. The Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) exam is a gold standard test that steno machine and mask reporters must pass. It ensures not only competence, but accountability.

By contrast, digital reporters—another recent trend fueled by transcription agencies—don’t meet this bar. These individuals are often not trained in legal proceedings, grammar, or punctuation. They serve as deposition officers who hit record, identify speakers, and make brief notes. Yet, they are not the ones producing the final transcript. Often, minimum-wage workers with no legal training are tasked with managing transcript production, introducing a dangerous lack of oversight. Years later, if an error is discovered in the transcript, the original team could be long gone—and no one can be held accountable.

The American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) has attempted to fill this gap by offering a certification program for digital reporters. However, it lacks the depth and rigor of the CSR exam. It does not include testing on state-specific laws or robust language skills. This creates a professional chasm between certified reporters and digital recording operators—a gap that the legal field cannot afford to ignore.

A Growing Threat: Big Tech and the Push for Profit

The increased use of digital and AI-based transcription is not driven by a desire for accuracy—it’s driven by economics. Big transcription companies see an opportunity to maximize profits by replacing highly trained professionals with software and underpaid, unqualified workers. But in doing so, they’re threatening the very foundation of legal recordkeeping.

AI/ASR, when used in a vacuum without certification or human oversight, is not just insufficient—it’s dangerous. Legal outcomes depend on the integrity of the record, and if that record is flawed, the consequences can be devastating for justice.

The Only Path Forward: Equal Standards for All

If AI/ASR is ever to be accepted in legal proceedings, it must undergo the same rigorous certification process as steno machine and voice writers. There needs to be a new category of reporter: the AI/ASR Reporter. This person must:

  1. Take the same CSR exam as their human counterparts.
  2. Be in the room (or virtual space) during proceedings.
  3. Be responsible for scoping and editing the AI feed in real-time.
  4. Submit the transcript alongside steno and voice writers under identical conditions and deadlines.
  5. Be the responsible party from the moment of capture to the final transcript delivery.

Only by requiring AI/ASR reporters to meet these professional benchmarks can we ensure that the technology serves the court, rather than undermines it.

However, there’s a major hurdle: the CSR exam does not allow recording of dictation. Since ASR is dependent on recordings to function, this creates an inherent incompatibility. Changing this rule to accommodate AI would degrade the standards that exist to ensure quality and accountability. And that’s a risk the legal field simply cannot take.

Conclusion: The Human Touch Still Matters Most

While technology will undoubtedly continue to evolve, accuracy, accountability, and certification remain the cornerstones of reliable court reporting. The steno machine, with its unmatched capability for instant readback and proven legal trustworthiness, remains the gold standard. Voicewriting has carved out a role in certain jurisdictions, but it still cannot match the machine’s immediacy. AI/ASR, for all its futuristic appeal, is not ready for the courtroom—at least not without human certification and oversight.

Until AI/ASR reporters can take the same certification exams and assume the same responsibilities, they should not be permitted to operate in legal settings. The stakes are simply too high, and the risks too great. In court, there’s no room for uncertainty—and no substitute for a certified, competent, and accountable human reporter.

A Crisis in the Courts – L.A. County’s Reporter Shortage, Jessner’s Controversial Order, and the Looming Threat of Jury Nullification

In Los Angeles County, a storm is brewing within the legal system—one that could shake the very foundation of justice in California’s largest court system. At the heart of the matter lies a controversial move by Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner, who recently issued a general order permitting electronic recording of proceedings in certain types of civil cases. On its face, the order may seem like a practical response to a court reporter shortage. But beneath the surface, legal experts, court observers, and concerned citizens are raising alarm bells. Critics say Judge Jessner’s order not only violates existing California law but also risks triggering a broader constitutional crisis—jury nullification.

The Legal Backdrop of California Government Code § 69957

To understand the magnitude of this decision, it’s important to first look at the law. California Government Code § 69957 explicitly limits the types of court proceedings that can be electronically recorded in lieu of official court reporters. The statute allows such recordings only in limited civil cases—typically smaller disputes involving damages below $25,000.

However, the statute prohibits electronic recording in unlimited civil, family, and probate courtrooms. These are high-stakes proceedings—cases involving millions of dollars, child custody, complex estates, and more. The law clearly indicates that human court reporters must transcribe these cases to ensure accurate and official records.

The Legislative Attempt That Failed

Earlier in 2024, California’s judiciary sought to change that. A proposed bill, AB 662, aimed to revise the Government Code and allow for broader electronic recording, including in unlimited civil, family, and probate matters. The judiciary’s argument was straightforward: the state faces a critical shortage of licensed court reporters, and electronic recording offers a stopgap solution.

But the California Legislature disagreed. In a decisive move, AB 662 was rejected—deemed inappropriate, perhaps unsafe, and certainly not a full replacement for trained professionals who capture the nuance, emotion, and verbal precision of courtroom proceedings. The bill’s failure reinforced the legal status quo: electronic recording remains strictly limited.

Presiding Judge Jessner’s recent order allowing electronic recording in civil, family, and probate courts defies California law—one that was already upheld in court 30 years ago. In the 1990s, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) sued LASC for the same issue and won. That decision was appealed and upheld. Jessner’s defiance now not only breaks the law—it violates settled case precedent.

​In the 1990s, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) challenged the use of electronic recording in superior court proceedings, leading to significant legal decisions that continue to influence court practices today.​

CCRA v. Judicial Council of California (1996):

In this case, the CCRA petitioned for a writ of mandate to prevent the Judicial Council from authorizing electronic recording in superior courts, arguing that such practices were inconsistent with statutory law. The trial court denied the petition, but upon appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the CCRA. The appellate court found that the California Rules of Court permitting electronic recording were invalid as they conflicted with existing statutes requiring certified shorthand reporters for superior court proceedings. This decision underscored the necessity of adhering to legislative mandates regarding court reporting methods. ​

Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association v. Superior Court (1995):

Similarly, the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association contested the Superior Court’s practice of using electronic recording devices instead of certified court reporters for general civil proceedings. The association sought a writ of mandate to compel the court to cease this practice, arguing it violated statutory provisions. The trial court ruled in favor of the association, ordering the Superior Court to stop using electronic recording in specified circumstances. This decision was upheld on appeal, reinforcing the requirement for certified court reporters in superior court proceedings and highlighting the judiciary’s obligation to comply with statutory requirements. ​

These cases established clear legal precedents emphasizing that the use of electronic recording in superior court proceedings, without explicit legislative authorization, is impermissible. They highlight the judiciary’s duty to adhere strictly to statutory mandates concerning court reporting methods.

Is Jessner’s Order a Legal End-Run?

With the bill defeated, the courts were expected to respect the will of the legislature. But Judge Jessner had other plans.

In a sweeping General Order issued after the failure of AB 662, Jessner authorized the use of electronic recordings in exactly the kinds of cases the law prohibits: unlimited civil, family, and probate. Critics argue that this is not only a defiance of the legislature but a direct contravention of the law itself.

Legal scholars and former judges have described the move as an overreach—what some call “legislating from the bench.” In effect, Jessner made a unilateral decision to expand the court’s powers, a responsibility that belongs solely to the state legislature. Her justification? A persistent shortage of court reporters.

Fact or Fiction? Questioning the Reporter Shortage Narrative

But that justification may not hold up under scrutiny.

Documents obtained through public records requests and interviews with court insiders suggest that the data Jessner cited to support the court reporter shortage may have been overstated or manipulated. While there is a known shortage of reporters statewide, critics say the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) has failed to address the problem in meaningful ways—such as improving working conditions, increasing pay, or investing in recruitment.

Instead, some accuse court leadership of manufacturing a crisis to justify policy changes that benefit the court’s administrative convenience at the expense of legal safeguards. By framing the shortage as a dire emergency, Jessner’s order attempts to bypass legal channels and implement a solution that had already been rejected through the proper democratic process.

The Reporter Shortage: Priorities, Budget Constraints, and Emerging Solutions

The court reporter shortage in California is not a sudden crisis; it’s the result of years of systemic strain, budgetary decisions, and shifting courtroom priorities. In response to dwindling staffing levels, courts across the state, including Los Angeles County, began quietly pulling certified reporters from civil courtrooms several years ago. In 2012 for Los Angeles county and back as early as 2018 in Orange County, and misdemeanor cases a decade earlier than that. The rationale was rooted in triage: felony and juvenile matters, often involving fundamental rights and liberty, were deemed higher priority and continue to receive first access to the remaining pool of reporters.

In counties like Sonoma, the shortage is even more acute. With 25 courtrooms and only eight reporters on staff, administrators are routinely forced to use electronic recording—even for felony calendars—when reporters are unavailable. The shortage is compounded by the courts’ reluctance to pay freelance or pro tempore reporters competitive rates, leaving them with few options when a staff reporter calls in sick or when demand exceeds supply. The daily pro tem rates that the Superior Court pay are 50-year old rates, going back to pre-1970; when given that freelancers rates have gone up, few are willing to go backwards in pay.

This strategy—prioritizing only the most serious cases—has left other vital proceedings like family law, probate, and general civil trials without the reliable and accurate records that certified reporters provide. These are often cases involving child custody, property disputes, and elder care—far from trivial, yet increasingly treated as expendable when staffing runs thin.

Yet, amid these challenges, a quiet shift may be underway. California recently authorized the use of voice writers—court reporters who use specialized speech recognition technology to create real-time transcripts. This move has begun to attract a new wave of applicants to the profession, offering a glimmer of hope for long-term staffing solutions.

Still, many argue that technology alone cannot replace the skill, accuracy, and accountability of a live reporter. The question remains: will California’s courts commit the necessary resources to rebuild the profession—or continue to drift toward a model that prioritizes cost-efficiency over courtroom integrity?

The Constitutional Crisis – Eroding Trust in the Judiciary

The implications of Jessner’s order extend beyond courtroom logistics. At stake is the integrity of the judicial system itself.

Imagine walking into a courtroom as a prospective juror. You are instructed by the judge, “Can you follow the law as I give it to you?” It’s a routine question in voir dire—the process of selecting a jury.

But now imagine the juror’s reply:

“Your honor, with all due respect, the judges in Los Angeles County have decided not to follow the law, so why should I?”

It’s a provocative response—but one grounded in real concerns. If judges can disregard the law and act unilaterally, what moral authority do they retain in asking jurors to uphold the law?

This is where the concept of jury nullification rears its head. Traditionally seen as a check against unjust laws or abusive prosecutions, jury nullification occurs when jurors acquit a defendant despite evidence of guilt because they believe the law itself is wrong or has been applied unfairly.

In this case, the danger is broader: that jurors may begin to see the judiciary as lawless, or worse, politically motivated. When trust in judicial impartiality erodes, the entire system suffers.

A Call for Accountability and Reform

This controversy points to a larger issue within the California judiciary—how courts respond to challenges, and whether they respect the legislative process.

No one denies that court reporter shortages are real and problematic. But the solution must lie in lawful reform, not judicial fiat. If court leadership believes electronic recording is necessary, they must make their case through the proper democratic channels—and respect the outcome.

To bypass the law because it is inconvenient sets a dangerous precedent. What happens the next time a judge finds another law too restrictive or outdated? Will they ignore that one, too?

What’s Next?

For now, legal watchdogs are calling for immediate action. Some advocate for judicial review of Jessner’s order, or for intervention by the California Judicial Council or even the State Bar. Others are considering litigation to challenge the order’s legality.

Meanwhile, the public—and especially jurors—are left in a troubling position. They are asked to follow the rules in a system where even the rule-makers seem to pick and choose which laws to obey.

The Los Angeles Superior Court system is not just facing a shortage of court reporters—it’s facing a crisis of confidence. And unless transparency, accountability, and respect for the rule of law are restored, that crisis could soon spill out of the courtroom and into the conscience of every citizen called to serve.

“Why I Love Court Reporting” FB Group Celebrates a Decade of Dedication in the Court Reporters’ Community & Camaraderie

​Today, April 3, 2025, marks the 10th anniversary of the “Why I Love Court Reporting” Facebook group, a community dedicated to celebrating and promoting the profession of court reporting. Over the past decade, this group has become a vital platform for court reporters, students, and enthusiasts to share experiences, offer support, and inspire one another. A strong and engaged community of 5,307 members shows how much passion and support there is for court reporting. Over the past decade, this group has truly become a cornerstone for professionals, students, and enthusiasts alike.

Origins and Purpose

Founded in 2015 by Cassandra Caldarella, a Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) and alumna of South Coast College, the group was established to highlight the positive aspects of court reporting. Caldarella’s passion for the profession is evident in her numerous articles and initiatives aimed at uplifting the community. She has been instrumental in creating platforms that allow individuals to express their love for court reporting and to support students transitioning into the field.

Community Impact

The “Why I Love Court Reporting” group has served as a beacon of positivity in the court reporting community. Members frequently share personal stories, professional achievements, and words of encouragement. For instance, Kathryn Thomas, a former student at South Coast College and winner of the “Why I Love Court Reporting” contest, shared how the reactions from others about her career choice boosted her confidence and reinforced her passion for the profession.

Educational Initiatives

Beyond fostering a supportive environment, the group has been involved in educational initiatives. Caldarella’s company, CoverCrow, Inc., launched a scholarship contest challenging students to articulate their passion for court reporting. This initiative not only provided financial support, but also encouraged students to reflect on their career choice and its impact. ​

The Profession’s Appeal

Court reporting offers numerous benefits that attract individuals to the field. According to Caldarella, some of the top reasons include:​

  1. Recession-Proof Career: The demand for court reporters remains steady, even during economic downturns.​
  2. High Income Potential: Salaries can be substantial, especially for those with specialized skills.​
  3. Variety of Settings: Court reporters work in diverse environments, keeping the job engaging.
  4. Flexibility: Many court reporters enjoy flexible schedules, allowing for a better work-life balance.​
  5. Contribution to Justice: Providing accurate records is crucial for the legal system. ​

Challenges and Advocacy

Despite its many advantages, the profession faces challenges, such as the push for electronic recording in courts. Organizations like the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association are actively advocating for the continued use of human court reporters, emphasizing the accuracy and reliability they bring to legal proceedings.

Looking Ahead

As the “Why I Love Court Reporting” group celebrates this milestone, it stands as a testament to the resilience and dedication of court reporters worldwide. The community’s unwavering support for one another ensures that the profession will continue to thrive and adapt in the years to come.​

Conclusion

The 10th anniversary of the “Why I Love Court Reporting” Facebook group is more than just a celebration of time passed; it’s a recognition of the community’s collective efforts to uplift, educate, and advocate for the profession. As members reflect on the past decade, their shared experiences and camaraderie highlight the enduring appeal and importance of court reporting in the legal landscape.

ABOUT “Why I Love Court Reporting” Group: This is the “positive” group about court reporting. This group is for all steno court reporters, students, prospective students, court reporting school administrators and instructors to help shed some light on the positive aspects of the stenography/court reporting profession and to help promote the stenography profession and to help recruit future court reporters to this amazing profession. This is for stenographic reporters who are highly skilled in their trade to share their insights and inspire those students and prospective students who work diligently to become one.

(*** Stenography is defined as using shorthand to make a verbatim record. It includes the methods of a stenographic machines and voice writers that utilize a mask to record their voice dictating shorthand commands.)

The Role of Court Reporters and the Limits of Interpreter Expectations

Court reporters are the backbone of legal proceedings, ensuring an accurate, verbatim record of everything said during depositions, trials, and hearings. The demand for real-time transcription services has grown significantly, particularly in cases involving multiple languages where interpreters are necessary. However, a recent situation highlights a growing concern: what are the reasonable expectations of interpreters when working with court reporters, and where do we draw the line?

The Expectation for LiveNote and a Provided Laptop

In a recent case, a German interpreter insisted that the court reporter provide her with a laptop and LiveNote, claiming she could not work without them. This is a troubling expectation for several reasons:

  1. Interpreters Are Expected to Work from What They Hear
    • The fundamental role of an interpreter is to listen to spoken words and convert them into another language in real-time. Requiring a written transcript as a crutch suggests a possible deficiency in their ability to perform the job.
    • LiveNote or any other real-time feed is an assistive tool, not an official transcript. It is subject to errors and omissions that a trained interpreter should not rely upon for translation accuracy.
  2. Technology and Equipment Responsibilities
    • Court reporters are responsible for their own equipment, software, and ensuring that their transcription is as accurate as possible. However, providing hardware or software for an interpreter is beyond the scope of a court reporter’s duties.
    • If an interpreter requires assistive technology, it should be the responsibility of their agency or the party contracting their services to provide it—not the court reporter.
  3. The Question of Accessibility
    • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ensures that individuals with disabilities receive reasonable accommodations, but it does not place the burden of providing those accommodations on an unrelated service provider.
    • If an interpreter has a hearing impairment that necessitates the use of real-time transcription, a separate live captioning professional should be brought in. A court reporter should not be expected to serve as both a stenographer and an accessibility provider simultaneously.

The Bigger Picture: Misuse of Realtime Feeds

Many court reporters have experienced situations where real-time feeds were used inappropriately. Some common issues include:

  • Calling Out Unedited Transcripts: Attorneys, witnesses, and interpreters have, on occasion, criticized the accuracy of real-time transcripts, failing to acknowledge that these are raw, unedited drafts. Unlike finalized transcripts, real-time feeds are generated on the fly and do not reflect the polished product that court reporters ultimately produce.
  • Dependency on LiveNote Instead of Listening: When an interpreter relies on reading text rather than listening, they are engaging in translation rather than interpretation. These are distinct skills, and the reliance on a written record raises concerns about the interpreter’s competency.
  • Unrealistic Expectations for Court Reporters: Some professionals assume that because a tool exists, it must be freely provided. However, LiveNote and other real-time software require setup, licensing, and technical maintenance—all responsibilities that fall outside a court reporter’s purview when it comes to third-party usage.

Setting Boundaries as a Court Reporter

So how do court reporters protect themselves from being taken advantage of in these situations? Here are some strategies:

  1. Clarify Expectations Beforehand
    • If you’re scheduled for a deposition or trial that requires an interpreter, make sure it’s clear from the outset that you are not responsible for providing them with equipment or software.
    • Send an email outlining what you will and will not provide. If an interpreter insists on needing real-time access, direct them to the party that hired them.
  2. Educate Attorneys and Legal Professionals
    • Many attorneys don’t understand the distinction between a court reporter and a CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation) provider. Make it known that CART services are separate from court reporting.
    • If an interpreter needs live captioning, suggest they hire a separate CART provider rather than expecting you to serve a dual role.
  3. Insert Yourself in the Record When Necessary
    • If an interpreter calls out the quality of your real-time feed, don’t hesitate to state on the record that the transcript is unedited and should not be used as an official document.
    • If an interpreter misuses your transcript, document it. If they are unable to perform their duties based on auditory interpretation alone, that needs to be addressed by the party who hired them.
  4. Protect Your Professional Boundaries
    • Court reporters should not feel pressured into providing additional services beyond their role. If an interpreter is unable to work without real-time transcription, this should be treated as a red flag.
    • If the issue persists, raise concerns with the hiring firm or legal team. It’s not your responsibility to accommodate an interpreter who cannot do their job independently.

Lessons from Past Experiences

This issue isn’t new. Many court reporters have faced similar situations where interpreters, attorneys, or other professionals misunderstood the role of a stenographer and misused real-time feeds. One court reporter recounted a deposition where a patent attorney in Asia openly criticized their imperfect real-time feed on the record, not understanding that raw real-time text is inherently different from an edited transcript. This highlights the necessity of educating legal professionals on the proper use of court reporting tools.

Similarly, another court reporter recalled a situation where a German interpreter’s inability to perform their job led to enormous financial consequences, including additional flights and hotel stays. These situations are preventable if clear expectations are set upfront.

Final Thoughts

Court reporters are highly trained professionals tasked with creating a verbatim record of legal proceedings. They are not responsible for providing accessibility services, technology accommodations, or acting as personal assistants to interpreters. While collaboration is essential in legal settings, boundaries must be respected to maintain the integrity of both professions.

If an interpreter cannot perform their duties without real-time assistance, that issue should be addressed by the hiring agency or law firm—not the court reporter. By setting clear expectations, educating legal professionals, and asserting professional boundaries, court reporters can protect themselves from undue burdens while ensuring that legal proceedings remain fair and accurate for all involved.

Building Strong Networks as a Court Reporter: Identifying People Who Will Advocate for You

In the legal industry, court reporters play a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy of legal proceedings. However, excelling in this profession requires more than just technical skills—it demands strong networking and professional relationships. Knowing who will speak your name in rooms filled with opportunities can significantly impact your career. Here are three ways to identify those who will advocate for you and help you grow in the field of court reporting.

1. Observe Their Behavior: Do They Elevate Others?

One of the best ways to determine whether someone is likely to recommend you for opportunities is by observing how they talk about others. Ask yourself:

  • Do they primarily talk about themselves, or do they highlight the achievements of others?
  • Do they acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of their colleagues?
  • Do they celebrate the successes of people in their network, even when they haven’t reached the same level themselves?

People who uplift others and give credit where it’s due are often the ones who will mention your name in important conversations. In the legal world, where credibility and reputation are paramount, having someone vouch for you can open doors you never anticipated.

2. Observe How They Network: Are They Genuine Connectors?

Networking is an essential skill in the court reporting industry, but not all networking efforts are created equal. Some people network for personal gain, while others genuinely seek to connect and support those around them. Consider the following:

  • Do they share job leads and opportunities with others without expecting anything in return?
  • Do they make introductions between professionals who could benefit from knowing each other?
  • Do they offer mentorship or guidance, especially to those who are new in the field?

People who actively support others without ulterior motives are the ones most likely to mention your name when opportunities arise. If someone consistently shares knowledge, resources, and referrals, they will likely do the same for you when the time comes.

3. Seek Feedback from Reliable Sources: What Do Others Say About Them?

Sometimes, the best way to gauge whether someone will advocate for you is by listening to what others say about them. If a colleague or mentor has a reputation for being supportive and helpful, they are more likely to mention your name in important discussions. Here’s how you can gather insights:

  • Ask trusted colleagues if they’ve benefited from this person’s support or referrals.
  • Look for testimonials or endorsements on professional networking platforms.
  • Observe how they interact with others in professional settings.

If multiple people can attest to someone’s willingness to uplift others, chances are, they will do the same for you. Building a network of supportive professionals can be a game-changer in your career as a court reporter.

The Power of Relationships in Court Reporting

In court reporting, as in many professions, relationships matter just as much as skills. The legal industry is built on trust, and having the right people in your corner can significantly boost your career. Here’s why staying close to supportive individuals is invaluable:

  • Referrals Lead to Opportunities: The more people who recognize your skills and professionalism, the higher the chances of being referred for high-profile cases.
  • Collaboration Strengthens Your Career: Connecting with professionals who appreciate your work ethic can lead to partnerships that enhance your credibility.
  • Support in Challenging Times: Whether you need career advice, job leads, or guidance on industry trends, having a strong support system ensures you’re never alone in your journey.

The Role of Gratitude and Reciprocity

While identifying people who will advocate for you is important, it’s equally crucial to be that person for others. Building a thriving network isn’t just about finding people who will help you—it’s about being a valuable connection to those around you. Here are a few ways to reciprocate support:

  • Acknowledge and promote the work of others: If a colleague does excellent work, let others know about it.
  • Share job openings and opportunities: If you come across a job posting or opportunity that suits someone in your network, pass it along.
  • Provide mentorship and encouragement: Offer guidance to newcomers in the industry, just as someone once helped you.

By being a generous and supportive professional, you create an environment where people naturally want to help you in return.

Surround Yourself with the Right People

Success in court reporting doesn’t happen in isolation—it thrives on the support of a strong professional network. By observing how people behave, how they network, and what others say about them, you can identify those who are most likely to advocate for you in rooms full of opportunities.

At the same time, becoming a person who uplifts others will make you an invaluable asset in any professional circle. The more you give, the more you receive, and over time, this cycle of generosity and support will propel your career forward.

In a field where precision and trust are everything, surrounding yourself with people who genuinely want to see you succeed is one of the smartest career moves you can make. So, take the time to build meaningful connections, be a resource for others, and watch as opportunities begin to unfold in ways you never expected.

Court Reporters Are The Most Advanced Professionals in Realtime Transcription

People love to label court reporting as “old-fashioned,” as if flawless accuracy, lightning-fast transcription, and steadfast reliability have somehow gone out of style. Spoiler alert: We’re not relics—we’re revolutionaries. Court reporters are the gold standard of realtime transcription, far surpassing AI, ASR, and digital recording. Let’s be clear: court reporting isn’t outdated; it’s unmatched. In fact, court reporters are the most advanced professionals in the realm of transcription—far beyond artificial intelligence (AI), automatic speech recognition (ASR), or digital recording methods. Let’s set the record straight: court reporting isn’t just a profession; it’s a highly specialized and technologically advanced skill that no machine can replicate.

Digital Recording? A Step Back in Time

Some claim that digital recording is the future of court reporting. The truth? It’s a step backward—by over a century. Before the advent of steno machines, courtrooms relied on manual transcription and audio recordings, fraught with inaccuracies and delays. If we revert to purely digital recording, we’re essentially returning to a primitive method that lacks the precision and dependability of a human court reporter.

Think about it: digital recordings capture sound, not language. A microphone doesn’t understand dialects, accents, or complex legal terminology. It doesn’t recognize when multiple people speak simultaneously or when an attorney mumbles an objection under their breath. A machine can’t ask for clarification when a crucial statement is unclear. Court reporters don’t just capture words—we interpret, contextualize, and ensure absolute accuracy in real time.

AI and ASR? Useful Tools, Not Replacements

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) have certainly advanced, but they remain imperfect. They lack the comprehension, adaptability, and decision-making capabilities that court reporters bring to the table. AI struggles with:

  • Accents and Dialects: Even the most advanced ASR programs falter when faced with heavy regional accents or multilingual speakers.
  • Homophones and Contextual Errors: AI doesn’t understand context. It may confuse “there,” “their,” and “they’re”—a mistake no seasoned court reporter would make.
  • Multiple Speakers and Overlapping Dialogue: AI systems are easily confused by simultaneous speech, leading to garbled transcripts.
  • Technical and Legal Terminology: A human court reporter understands complex jargon and can accurately translate specialized terminology that AI may misinterpret.

But here’s the most important fact: AI and ASR exist within the technology used by court reporters—not as replacements, but as powerful augmentations that make us even better.

Stenographers Are The Pinnacle of Advanced Transcription Technology

Far from being outdated, stenographic court reporting has continuously evolved to integrate cutting-edge technology. Steno Computer-Aided Transcription (CAT) software, such as Eclipse Boost from Advanced Technologies, incorporates AI-driven tools that enhance our abilities without removing our control.

Unlike standalone AI systems, which attempt (and fail) to replace human expertise, Eclipse Boost works with court reporters, providing:

  • Real-Time Augmentation: AI running in the background helps improve translation speed and accuracy, especially for difficult names and technical words.
  • Enhanced Word Recognition: The software suggests spelling corrections and translations for complex words while keeping the court reporter in the driver’s seat.
  • Speed Optimization: AI works in parallel with our stenographic skills, improving efficiency while maintaining human oversight and accuracy.

This isn’t automation replacing professionals—it’s innovation empowering experts. Court reporters wield the most advanced technology available in the transcription industry. We don’t fear AI; we use AI to remain the most effective, precise, and irreplaceable professionals in the field.

Why Court Reporters Will Always Be Essential

Beyond technology, court reporters bring something that no machine can: human judgment and reliability.

  1. Accuracy Beyond Algorithms: A court reporter ensures every word is captured exactly as spoken, even in difficult acoustic environments.
  2. Real-Time Transcription: Unlike post-processed ASR systems, court reporters provide live, on-the-spot transcripts.
  3. Confidentiality and Ethics: Machines can be hacked or manipulated. Court reporters adhere to strict professional and ethical standards to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings.
  4. Adaptability and Comprehension: We don’t just “listen”—we understand. We adjust for nuances, clarify ambiguity, and ensure precision in ways that technology simply cannot.

The Future of Court Reporting is Brighter Than Ever

As technology continues to advance, court reporters will always remain at the forefront. We are not only keeping up with innovation—we are leading it. With AI-enhanced steno CAT software like Eclipse Boost, we leverage the best of both worlds: human expertise coupled with technological augmentation.

So the next time someone calls court reporting “old-fashioned,” remind them that real-time stenographic reporting is the most advanced and reliable transcription method in existence. AI and digital recording may try to imitate us, but they’ll never replace the precision, adaptability, and professionalism that only court reporters bring to the table.

We’re not outdated—we’re indispensable. 💯

The Importance of Ergonomics and Professionalism for Court Reporters

As a freelance court reporter, you’re constantly adapting to different environments, personalities, and unexpected challenges. One scenario that can throw off even the most seasoned professionals is something as seemingly simple as an inadequate chair. It may sound trivial to those outside the profession, but for court reporters, the right seating arrangement is critical for accuracy, efficiency, and endurance.

A recent discussion among reporters highlighted a situation in which an attorney refused to provide an adequate chair for a deposition, forcing the reporter into an uncomfortable and impractical working condition. The refusal wasn’t just dismissive—it was outright obstructive to the court reporter’s ability to perform their job. Let’s break down why this matters and how to handle such situations professionally.

Why Ergonomics Matter in Court Reporting

Court reporting is a highly specialized skill that demands focus, dexterity, and precision. The stenographic process involves repetitive hand movements, and even the slightest restriction can cause physical discomfort, reduce speed, and impact the quality of transcripts. Proper ergonomics is not a luxury—it is a necessity.

  • Arm Freedom is Essential – Stenographers rely on the ability to move their hands freely without obstruction. Chairs with high armrests or confined spaces restrict movement, which can lead to cramping, fatigue, and errors in transcription.
  • Posture and Endurance – Depositions can last for hours, requiring reporters to maintain an upright position with clear visibility of all parties. Uncomfortable seating can lead to back pain and affect concentration.
  • Speed and Accuracy – Court reporting requires a delicate balance of skill and physical ease. The ability to type at high speeds (200+ words per minute) without distraction is compromised if the body is in distress.

What to Do When a Chair Becomes a Problem

Step 1: Assess the Situation Immediately

Before unpacking equipment, take a moment to assess the seating situation. If the chair is restrictive or unsuitable, address the issue right away with office staff. This early intervention can prevent last-minute conflicts when proceedings are about to begin.

Step 2: Request a Reasonable Alternative

Most offices have various seating options available, and a polite request often resolves the issue. Suggested phrases include:

  • “This chair isn’t quite working for me—do you have another option that doesn’t restrict arm movement?”
  • “Would it be possible to switch to an adjustable chair for better positioning?”

Step 3: Stand Firm, But Professional

If resistance is met, calmly explain that the seating arrangement directly affects your ability to perform the job. This is not a personal preference—it’s a matter of professional necessity. In situations where the request is denied outright, contacting the scheduling agency is the next step. Agencies want jobs to proceed smoothly, and they can often intervene to facilitate a resolution.

Step 4: Know When to Walk Away

In the scenario where an attorney outright refused to accommodate, the reporter was placed in an impossible situation. While professionalism is always key, no job is worth compromising your ability to work effectively. Politely but firmly standing your ground is essential:

  • “I understand that office accommodations can be limited, but without the proper chair, I cannot perform my duties effectively. If no alternative is available, I will have to step away.”

A job done under physically restrictive conditions may lead to mistakes, delays, or even physical strain, none of which are acceptable risks.

Handling Difficult Attorneys and Office Staff

Attorneys come with different personalities—some are accommodating, while others may be dismissive or outright rude. When facing hostility, keeping a calm and professional demeanor is crucial.

  • Avoid Escalation – Keep interactions neutral. If an attorney is being difficult, engaging in an argument rarely helps.
  • Rely on the Agency – If hired through an agency, inform them promptly of the issue. They may be able to smooth things over with the client or provide guidance on handling the situation.
  • Document Incidents – If an attorney is particularly unprofessional, making a note of the incident (for the agency or personal records) can be useful, especially if similar problems arise with that firm in the future.

Preventative Measures for Future Depositions

To avoid finding yourself in a similar situation again, consider implementing proactive strategies:

  1. Request Seating Preferences in Advance – If working in an unfamiliar office, it may be helpful to request a basic ergonomic setup through the agency ahead of time.
  2. Carry a Portable Seat Cushion – While it won’t solve armrest issues, having a cushion can help with height adjustments and comfort.
  3. Be Prepared to Say No – If an environment is not conducive to doing the job properly, it is better to walk away than to compromise performance and well-being.

Final Thoughts

This situation highlights an important reality for freelance court reporters: You have the right to reasonable accommodations that allow you to do your job effectively. While most attorneys and offices will be willing to accommodate such a simple request, there may be rare instances where you encounter resistance. When that happens, standing firm while maintaining professionalism is key.

At the end of the day, court reporters provide an essential service in the legal system. The ability to produce an accurate transcript should never be compromised by something as avoidable as an unsuitable chair. Your comfort directly impacts your efficiency—never feel guilty for advocating for what you need to do your job well.

For those who spend long hours reporting from home, investing in a high-quality chair is essential. I’ve had my Herman Miller Embody chair for about a decade, and I couldn’t report without it. Designed for long-term comfort and optimal posture, it provides the perfect balance of support and flexibility, reducing strain during marathon transcription sessions. If you’re looking for a game-changer in home office ergonomics, this chair is worth every penny.

Movie “Lucy” with Scarlett Johannson features the Herman Miller “Embody” chair.

Transcript Theft: The Silent Threat to Court Reporters

For court reporters, every deposition presents its own unique challenges. Some days are smooth and efficient, while others can be long, exhausting, and fraught with unexpected difficulties. One issue that is becoming increasingly common in the field is the ambiguous and sometimes frustrating practice of attorneys discussing the “cost-sharing” of transcripts—only to later clarify that they intend to share a single transcript, rather than each ordering their own copies.

This practice raises concerns about fairness, ethics, and financial sustainability for court reporters, particularly in jurisdictions where the demand for real-time transcripts and expedited production is high. If you’re a court reporter facing this issue, you’re not alone.

A Shift in Attorney Practices

Recently, a long-time court reporter with decades of experience encountered a situation that reflects a growing trend. Before a deposition began, the attorneys informally discussed splitting the cost of the transcript. However, at the conclusion of the deposition, only the noticing attorney placed an order, leaving the reporter questioning whether the attorneys had always intended to share a single transcript rather than individually paying for their own copies.

This shift in behavior among legal professionals raises important questions:

  • Are attorneys becoming more strategic about reducing their costs at the expense of court reporters?
  • Is this an ethical gray area, or does it outright violate industry standards and policies?
  • What steps can court reporters take to protect their earnings and ensure proper transcript distribution?

The Business Side of Court Reporting

Many court reporters, especially those who have owned firms or worked independently, understand that transcript sales are a fundamental aspect of the profession. Unlike salaried employees, court reporters often rely on transcript orders as their primary source of income. When multiple attorneys rely on a single transcript instead of ordering their own copies, it directly impacts the reporter’s earnings.

While some firms have policies that require each attorney to place an order, enforcement can be inconsistent. Large court reporting agencies, often referred to as “big box” firms, may also prioritize volume over individual transcript sales, making it harder for reporters to push back on these practices.

The Noticing Attorney’s Power

In many jurisdictions, the noticing attorney is responsible for hiring the court reporter and is typically the party obligated to purchase the original transcript. However, this does not mean that other attorneys involved in the case should assume they are entitled to a free copy. The expectation should be that if they need a transcript, they should place an official order and pay for it accordingly.

Unfortunately, some attorneys—whether due to budget constraints, firm policies, or simple opportunism—choose to informally “share” a transcript, rather than ordering their own. This practice, while not necessarily illegal, is problematic because it undervalues the labor-intensive work of court reporters and reduces their earning potential.

Addressing Urgent Transcript Requests

Another challenge that often accompanies these situations is the expectation of quick turnaround times. In the case of the veteran reporter mentioned earlier, the noticing attorney casually stated they would call the firm if they wanted the transcript expedited by Monday. The reporter rightly pointed out that it would be best to discuss turnaround time directly with them, as they are the one responsible for actually producing the transcript.

This interaction highlights another growing concern: attorneys treating court reporters as interchangeable service providers, rather than skilled professionals with expertise in legal proceedings. The assumption that a transcript can be produced at a moment’s notice, without confirming availability with the actual reporter, reflects a lack of understanding (or appreciation) of the work involved.

Steps Court Reporters Can Take

So, how can court reporters navigate these issues and ensure they are fairly compensated for their work? Here are some strategies to consider:

1. Clarify Orders Before the Deposition Begins

At the start of each deposition, reporters should explicitly confirm who will be ordering a copy. If attorneys mention “splitting costs,” follow up with a direct question: “Just to clarify, will each of you be ordering your own copy of the transcript?” This puts them on the spot and discourages any ambiguity.

2. Work with Your Firm to Establish Policies

If you work for a larger agency, have a discussion about policies regarding transcript distribution. Some firms require attorneys to order their own copies to prevent cost-sharing abuses. If your firm doesn’t have such a policy, consider advocating for one.

3. Include Terms in Your Agreements

For independent court reporters and small firms, contracts should specify that each attorney must order their own copy if they wish to receive one. Having a clear, written policy can serve as protection against attorneys who attempt to circumvent standard practices.

4. Be Firm but Professional

When attorneys assume they can call the firm for expedited requests without consulting you, politely but firmly remind them that turnaround times must be discussed with the court reporter directly. For example, a simple statement like, “I want to ensure I can meet your deadline, so please confirm now if you need a rush order,” can prevent last-minute surprises.

5. Report Problematic Practices

If you repeatedly encounter attorneys engaging in unethical or questionable transcript-sharing practices, consider reporting the issue to your state’s court reporting association or regulatory board. Some states have guidelines that address these concerns, and bringing awareness to the issue can lead to industry-wide improvements.

The Future of Court Reporting in a Changing Legal Landscape

As the legal industry evolves, court reporters must stay proactive in protecting their work and ensuring fair compensation. The rise of digital reporting and AI-driven transcription services has already created challenges for traditional stenographers. Adding issues like transcript-sharing only makes it more important for reporters to advocate for their value and push back against practices that undermine their livelihood.

While there may be days when the job is frustrating, court reporters play a crucial role in the justice system. Without accurate, timely transcripts, legal proceedings would suffer immensely. The more reporters stand up for their rights and establish clear expectations with attorneys, the better the profession will be for all involved.

Have you experienced similar situations with transcript orders? How do you handle attorneys who try to share one copy instead of purchasing their own? Let’s continue the conversation and work towards solutions that benefit the entire court reporting community.

Taming the Tech Tyrant: Conquering the Chaos of Courtroom Correspondence

In the fast-paced world of court reporting, managing an overflowing email inbox can feel like an insurmountable challenge. Emails pile up, important messages get buried, and the constant influx can lead to significant stress and decreased productivity. Without a structured system, managing these communications can consume hours of your day, leading to frustration and inefficiency.

Understanding the Email Overload

For court reporters, timely and accurate communication is paramount. However, the sheer volume of emails—from deposition schedules to transcript requests—can quickly become overwhelming. Without an effective strategy, managing these communications can take up a disproportionate amount of time, reducing efficiency and focus.

Key Strategies for Taming Your Inbox

  1. Adopt a Proactive Email Mindset
    Instead of allowing your inbox to dictate your day, set specific times to check and respond to emails. This practice minimizes constant interruptions and allows for more focused work periods.
  2. Implement the “Four Ds” of Decision-Making
    When processing emails, apply the “Four Ds” method:
    • Delete: Immediately remove unnecessary emails. Do: If an email requires a quick response (typically under two minutes), address it immediately. Delegate: Forward emails to the appropriate person if it’s not your responsibility. Defer: For emails requiring more time, schedule them for later attention by converting them into tasks or calendar events.
    This method ensures that each email is handled appropriately, reducing inbox clutter and preventing important tasks from being overlooked.
  3. Utilize Folders and Labels Effectively
    Organize your inbox by creating specific folders or labels for different types of emails, such as “Agency Job Alerts,” “Agency Pay Statements,” “Transcripts,” “Agency Job Assignments,” or “NCRA.” This categorization allows for quicker retrieval and a more organized inbox.
  4. Leverage Email Tools and Features
    Modern email clients like Outlook, Gmail, and/or Yahoo offer a variety of features designed to enhance productivity:
    • Rules and Filters: Automate the sorting of incoming emails into designated folders based on criteria like sender or subject line.
    • Templates: Create standardized responses for common inquiries to save time.
    • Flags and Stars: Mark important emails that require follow-up, ensuring they remain visible.
  5. Regularly Declutter Your Inbox
    Set aside time weekly to review and clean your inbox. Archive or delete old emails, unsubscribe from irrelevant newsletters, and ensure your folders are up to date. Regular maintenance prevents the buildup of unnecessary emails and keeps your system efficient.
  6. Change Your Email Message Mindset
    Become a “message detective” by analyzing each email for its core task or request. This approach allows you to prioritize effectively and respond more efficiently. By diagnosing the purpose of each message, you can determine the appropriate action without unnecessary deliberation.

Practical Application for Court Reporters

Implementing these strategies can lead to tangible benefits in the daily operations of court reporters:

  • Enhanced Focus: By scheduling specific times for email management, you can dedicate uninterrupted periods to transcription and other critical tasks.
  • Improved Organization: Utilizing folders and labels ensures that essential communications are easily accessible, reducing time spent searching for information.
  • Reduced Stress: A structured approach to email minimizes the feeling of being overwhelmed, leading to a more manageable workload.

By embracing these strategies and utilizing available tools, court reporters can transform their email from a source of stress into a tool that enhances productivity and organization. Taking control of your inbox is not just about managing emails—it’s about reclaiming your time and focus for the tasks that truly matter.

Courtroom Champions – Crafting Resilience in a Rapidly Revolutionizing Realm​

In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and shifting industry landscapes, court reporters face unprecedented challenges that demand innovative strategies to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness. Drawing inspiration from the “Survival of the Fittest Playbook,” which outlines approaches for asset managers to navigate complex environments, we can derive valuable insights applicable to court reporting professionals. This article explores how court reporters can adapt to the evolving environment by embracing technological integration, pursuing continuous professional development, and upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethics.​

Understanding the Current Landscape

Historically, court reporting has centered around stenography, a method involving the real-time transcription of spoken words using shorthand. However, the rise of digital transcription services, voice recognition software, and artificial intelligence has introduced both opportunities and challenges to the profession. While these technologies claim to offer benefits such as increased speed and cost-effectiveness, they also pose concerns regarding accuracy and the nuanced understanding that experienced human reporters provide. Automated systems may struggle with accents, dialects, or colloquial language, potentially leading to errors that could significantly impact legal proceedings. In contrast, skilled court reporters bring a level of comprehension and discernment that machines currently cannot replicate.​

Embracing Technological Integration

To remain indispensable in this changing landscape, court reporters must proactively integrate new technologies into their workflows. This involves staying informed about the latest advancements in CAT Software and understanding the limitations of competing automated systems. By leveraging technology to enhance their services, court reporters can offer real-time transcription, provide instantaneous access to transcripts, and utilize advanced CAT software such as Advantage Software’s Eclipse with Boost to improve accuracy and efficiency. Embracing technology not only streamlines processes, but also demonstrates a commitment to meeting the evolving needs of clients and the legal system.​

Continuous Professional Development

In a rapidly evolving industry, ongoing education is paramount. Court reporters should actively seek opportunities for professional development, not only in court reporting techniques but also in related fields such as technology and legal knowledge. Enhancing skills in areas like real-time transcription, understanding legal terminology, and mastering new CAT software tools can broaden the scope of services offered and increase value to clients. Additionally, pursuing certifications and attending workshops or seminars can keep court reporters abreast of industry trends and best practices, ensuring they remain competitive and proficient.​

Upholding Professionalism and Ethics

Maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct is essential for court reporters. This includes demonstrating reliability, impartiality, and respect for all parties involved in legal proceedings. As court reporters engage with new CAT technologies and adapt to changes, steadfast adherence to ethical practices ensures the integrity of the profession. This commitment builds trust with clients and upholds the credibility of the legal documentation process.​

Adapting to New Challenges

The evolving landscape presents specific challenges that court reporters must navigate effectively:​

  1. Handling Emotional Testimonies: Court reporters often encounter emotionally charged testimonies. Developing strategies for mental preparation, stress management, and seeking support from peers can help maintain composure and ensure accurate, unbiased transcription during such instances.​
  2. Managing Technical Difficulties: Technical issues with recording equipment can arise unexpectedly. Being prepared to troubleshoot and having contingency plans in place are crucial for minimizing disruptions and maintaining the flow of proceedings.​
  3. Effective Communication: Clear communication with all participants in legal proceedings is vital. Introducing oneself, explaining roles, and setting expectations regarding the transcription process can prevent misunderstandings and facilitate smoother interactions.​

As the court reporting profession continues to evolve amidst technological advancements and changing industry dynamics, adaptability becomes the cornerstone of resilience. By embracing technological integration, committing to continuous professional development, and upholding unwavering professionalism and ethics, court reporters can navigate the complexities of the modern legal landscape. These strategies not only ensure survival, but also position court reporters to thrive, delivering unparalleled value in an increasingly complex and challenging world.​

Fighting Like Hell to Save the Stenography Profession Through Innovation, Grit, and Perseverance

In an era of rapid technological advancements, many professions face the risk of obsolescence. The stenography profession—one that has been essential to legal proceedings, government institutions, and business communications—is now at a crossroads. Digital recording technologies and artificial intelligence-driven transcription services threaten to replace human court reporters. However, history shows us that professions on the brink of extinction can be saved through grit, perseverance, innovation, relevance, and a reassertion of their value. If we want to preserve stenography, we need to fight like hell, and we need to do it now. Here’s how we can take inspiration from other industries and apply out-of-the-box thinking to secure the future of court reporting stenography.

Learning from Other Professions That Avoided Extinction

Many industries have faced existential threats but found ways to adapt and thrive. Here are a few examples:

1. The Resurgence of Print Media

With the advent of digital news, print media was declared a dying industry. However, major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post reinvented themselves by investing in digital subscriptions, engaging content, and multimedia storytelling. They leaned into their credibility and expertise, proving their value in an era of misinformation.

Lesson for Stenographers: We must modernize how we present our profession. Social media, online marketing, and educational campaigns must highlight the superiority of human stenographers over AI-generated transcripts. Digital marketing strategies should reinforce why accuracy, confidentiality, and reliability matter in legal proceedings.

2. The Revival of Artisanal Craftsmanship

Traditional crafts like watchmaking, woodworking, and even bespoke tailoring faced extinction due to mass production. However, they made a comeback by emphasizing quality, uniqueness, and human craftsmanship. Brands like Rolex, Levi’s, and Etsy sellers leveraged the “handcrafted” movement to reintroduce their value to modern consumers.

Lesson for Stenographers: Court reporting is an art form requiring skill, experience, and acute attention to detail. By branding our profession as a highly skilled craft that no machine can replicate, we reinforce the need for human stenographers in legal proceedings.

3. The Evolution of Farming with Organic and Local Movements

Industrial farming nearly wiped out small-scale farmers, but they fought back by promoting organic, locally sourced, and sustainable agriculture. Consumers began to value these qualities over mass-produced food, leading to a thriving industry that rebranded itself.

Lesson for Stenographers: We must redefine what we bring to the table. By positioning stenographers as the “gold standard” in legal documentation—ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and security—we can differentiate our service from unreliable digital alternatives.

Out-of-the-Box Solutions to Save Stenography

1. Public Awareness Campaigns – Show the Public Why Stenographers Matter

A significant challenge in saving stenography is that most people are unaware of its importance. We need to show them our value. We need a widespread awareness campaign that highlights:

  • The consequences of inaccurate transcriptions in legal proceedings.
  • The failure rate of AI-generated transcripts.
  • The essential role stenographers play in ensuring fair trials.
  • Without an unbiased guardian of the record, justice collapses, leaving room for tyranny.

Imagine a viral marketing campaign with side-by-side comparisons of AI vs. human-generated transcripts, showing glaring errors and their potential legal ramifications.

2. High School Outreach Programs: Cultivating Future Stenographers

Many students never consider stenography as a career simply because they aren’t exposed to it. Creating school outreach programs that introduce high school students to stenography—through workshops, scholarships, and competitions—could inspire a new generation to enter the profession. If coding and STEM fields can be made “cool,” so can stenography.

3. Partnering with Influencers and Social Media Engagement

Professional fields like finance and law have successfully used social media influencers to make technical subjects engaging. A TikTok or YouTube channel dedicated to stenography—showcasing speed tests, behind-the-scenes court reporting, and industry insights—could generate interest in a way traditional outreach methods cannot.

4. Leveraging Technology Instead of Fighting It

Rather than resisting new technology, stenographers should integrate it into their workflow. Real-time transcription services that utilize both AI and human oversight could increase efficiency without compromising accuracy. Creating stenography-based apps that streamline reporting processes could also make the profession more appealing to younger generations.

5. Offering Specialized Services That AI Cannot Replicate

AI transcription services struggle with accents, multiple speakers, and legal jargon. Stenographers can carve out a niche by specializing in:

  • Complex legal cases where accuracy is paramount.
  • Highly confidential proceedings where human discretion is needed.
  • Transcription of medical or technical testimonies that require a deep understanding of terminology.

6. Advocating for Legislation to Protect Quality Standards

Lobbying for policies that mandate the use of certified human stenographers in court proceedings could help secure the profession’s future. This has worked for other industries—environmental groups have pushed for laws requiring sustainable farming practices, and medical professionals have successfully advocated for stricter certification standards.

7. Creating a Cohesive Front: Strength in Numbers

One of the biggest threats to stenography is division within the profession. Court reporters, legal professionals, and advocacy groups must come together to present a collective voice. Industry-wide coalitions could fund awareness campaigns, education programs, and lobbying efforts.

8. Stenography as a Luxury or Prestige Service

Just as handwritten letters became a luxury in an era of digital communication, stenographers could position themselves as the “premium” transcription service. High-end law firms and corporations could be targeted as clientele willing to pay for guaranteed precision.

The Time to Act Is Now

The stenography profession will not survive unless we take bold, decisive action. We must embrace innovation, redefine our value, and educate the public on why human court reporters are irreplaceable. Other industries have fought extinction and won—so can we. But it requires resilience, a willingness to adapt, and an unwavering commitment to the profession.

It’s time to fight like hell for stenography. If we don’t, no one else will.

The Battle Between Humans and AI in Court Reporting

The realm of court reporting has seen significant technological advancements in the last few decades, with automation creeping into nearly every field. One area where this shift is particularly noticeable is in the transcription of courtroom proceedings. With the advent of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology, many have speculated that AI might soon replace human court reporters, making traditional methods obsolete. However, as promising as ASR might seem, it is clear that human court reporters still possess an undeniable advantage when it comes to accuracy, comprehension, and adaptability. This tug of war between human expertise and AI promises to continue, with significant implications for the future of legal documentation and the justice system as a whole.

The Rise of Automatic Speech Recognition Technology

ASR technology, which converts spoken words into written text, has been in development for decades. In the early stages, it was mostly used for dictation or simple transcription tasks, like converting voice memos to text. Today, AI systems like Google’s Speech-to-Text, Amazon Transcribe, and Otter.ai have made impressive strides, claiming to provide real-time transcription that can be used in a variety of fields, including court reporting.

These systems have promised to revolutionize how legal proceedings are documented, reducing both cost and time. For courts, ASR could potentially eliminate the need for human court reporters or stenographers, while also offering a faster turnaround for transcriptions. ASR technology relies on deep learning algorithms and vast datasets to train its models, with the potential to refine its accuracy over time. In theory, AI should be able to catch up to and surpass human court reporters as the technology evolves.

However, the reality of this technological transition is far more complex. While ASR offers impressive speed, it has yet to match human accuracy, especially in the nuanced, high-stakes environment of a courtroom. The idea that ASR could replace humans entirely is still distant, with accuracy rates currently hovering around 76%. This gap in precision is a major hurdle in its full integration into court reporting, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in legal proceedings.

The Challenges of ASR in Court Reporting

Despite its technological advances, ASR still faces significant challenges in accurately transcribing courtroom proceedings. One of the most significant issues is its relatively low accuracy rate. ASR can often struggle with distinguishing between speakers, especially in situations where there is a lot of background noise or multiple voices talking over each other. In a courtroom, where different people speak in rapid succession and occasionally over one another, this becomes a serious problem. This limitation often results in transcripts that are incomplete or riddled with errors, undermining their utility in legal contexts.

ASR systems also struggle with the nuances of language. In legal proceedings, there is a particular lexicon of technical terms, legal jargon, and specialized vocabulary that AI models have trouble recognizing and transcribing accurately. In a field where precise wording can make or break a case, the inability to accurately transcribe legal terminology can have severe consequences.

Moreover, ASR struggles with issues like accents, dialects, and varying speech patterns. While human court reporters are trained to recognize these variations and adapt to them, ASR systems still rely on standardized datasets and often falter when faced with speakers who deviate from these norms. In a multicultural society, where accents and speech patterns vary significantly, this poses a substantial obstacle for AI-based transcription.

Human Court Reporters as Unmatched Experts

Human court reporters, on the other hand, have an advantage over AI in numerous ways. Trained professionals, typically specializing in stenography or shorthand, have been key to the legal system for centuries. Their ability to transcribe in real-time with near-perfect accuracy is unparalleled, and their expertise cannot be replicated by machines in its entirety.

One of the key reasons human reporters maintain a competitive edge over ASR is their ability to understand context. While ASR can transcribe words as they are spoken, human court reporters can read the room, picking up on non-verbal cues, the tone of voice, and the nuances of legal jargon that a machine simply cannot process. Furthermore, human reporters can correct mistakes as they go, asking for clarification or rephrasing when needed, ensuring that the final transcript is as accurate as possible.

Human court reporters are also highly trained to navigate the intricacies of a courtroom. They understand the importance of confidentiality, the nuances of legal proceedings, and the significance of precise wording. In the fast-paced environment of a courtroom, this expertise is indispensable.

Additionally, human reporters have an unrivaled ability to transcribe multiple speakers simultaneously, particularly in situations where there is cross-talk or interruptions. This is something that ASR technology, with its reliance on algorithms and voice separation techniques, still struggles to manage effectively. In situations where legal proceedings can become tense, with numerous individuals speaking at once, the human court reporter’s ability to follow the conversation and produce a clear and accurate record is essential.

The Risks of Relying on ASR for Court Transcriptions

While ASR offers the appeal of speed and cost-efficiency, it introduces serious risks when used for transcribing court proceedings. In legal contexts, where the integrity of a transcript is paramount, errors can have significant consequences. A single mistake in a transcription could alter the outcome of a case or lead to appeals, delays, and miscarriages of justice.

One of the most concerning risks is the potential for bias in ASR systems. As with all AI technologies, ASR systems are only as good as the data they are trained on. If the training data includes biases—whether linguistic, regional, or cultural—those biases may be reflected in the transcriptions. This is particularly problematic in a legal context, where fairness and impartiality are of utmost importance. Human court reporters, on the other hand, are trained to handle such issues in a way that ensures accuracy and neutrality.

Another potential danger is the reliance on ASR systems that are not fully tested or refined. With an accuracy rate of only 76%, it is clear that AI transcription technology still has a long way to go before it can be trusted to handle the complexities of court reporting. Errors in transcription could lead to misinterpretations of evidence, incorrect legal decisions, and a breakdown in the trust that the public has in the justice system.

The Challenges of ASR in Court Reporting

Despite the current limitations of ASR, it’s clear that the future of court reporting may involve a combination of human expertise and AI assistance. Rather than fully replacing human court reporters, AI could serve as a tool to support them, improving efficiency without sacrificing accuracy.

For instance, AI could be used to generate initial drafts of transcriptions, which human court reporters could then review and correct. This hybrid approach would allow court reporters to focus on more complex tasks, like ensuring that the transcription is contextually accurate and capturing the nuances of a particular case, while leaving the more tedious aspects of transcription to AI. By leveraging the strengths of both human intelligence and AI, courts could ensure that transcriptions are both efficient and reliable.

As ASR technology improves, it may one day offer more competitive accuracy rates, but until that day comes, human court reporters remain an essential part of the legal process. Their ability to adapt to the unique challenges of courtroom transcription, to understand context, and to ensure the accuracy of transcriptions is unparalleled by any AI currently available.

The tug of war between humans and AI in the field of court reporting is far from over. While ASR technology holds promise, its current limitations make it no match for the skill and accuracy of human court reporters. The future may see a shift toward a hybrid model, where AI assists rather than replaces human workers. However, until ASR reaches the level of precision necessary to handle the complexities of legal proceedings, human expertise will remain the cornerstone of accurate court transcription. In a field where every word matters, the human touch will continue to reign supreme for the foreseeable future.

Digital Pay Parity A Pipe Dream of Unbalanced Benefit

In the maze of many-minded musings, a misplaced message murmurs, misguiding. There, within the realms of digital discourse, where technology tempts and tarnishes, the tides of truth twist and turn. In these swirling waters, Christopher Day’s words, all wrapped in revelation, ring out like a hollow echo—unaware of their weighty faults, their fragile fabric. A new, narrow narrative on digital pay parity is spun, but allow me, with an artist’s ink and alliteration’s flair, to challenge the changeless chase, to chart a counter-course to this claim, and let the loud, lively lines of logic burst forth.

Toxic Temptation of Digital’s Distant Dream

Let’s first dive, dear reader, into the digital delight that Day deems inevitable. Digital pay parity, he suggests, will shift the scales, settle the score, save the scene. But no—this is not salvation, nor a so-called solution. It’s a silken snare, spun to seem sweet, but underneath, it chokes. This charming chant of “equal pay” presupposes that parity will make a change, but in fact, it merely perpetuates the plague of corporate greed and stunted industry standards. How can digital parity shift a system that thrives on mediocrity, not mastery?

The cry for digital acceptance rings through corporate halls, but is it truly the wave of wisdom or the whimper of welfare for the wealthy? Don’t mistake digital’s dominance for the dawn of a new day; it’s merely the dull drum of dollars dictating direction. True progress, true parity, rises from the roots of real skill, not through a corrupted compromise in coin. And let us never forget, for all of its touted triumphs, the digital device will never emulate the essence of experience.

Reality, Reality, Reality? Refrain, and Reflect

Day dances through his supposed “reality” with a hasty hand, painting a picture of power where digital dominance seems a destined fate. But reality isn’t one-size-fits-all. Reality is riddled with ruin for the real practitioners, not the digital dreamers. Digital’s rise, in truth, is but a product of a market manipulated by money, not merit. Let us not ignore the fact that the ‘reality’ Day speaks of is the same reality that leads to layoffs, loss of livelihood, and the lowing of laborers in long-standing lines of work.

The banks and the bottom lines may crave the cold, consistent comfort of digital, but they sacrifice quality in the process. Real-time stenography, with its complex craft, cannot be replaced by a machine’s hollow hum. Skill over speed—substance over surveillance. The lament of the lost stenographer rings louder than any clattering keystroke of a machine. Reality isn’t about corporate convenience; it’s about the craft’s value.

Shifting Sands – Lenders and Loans, Mired in Misinformation

Ah, and then there are the lenders—those mighty money-men whose machinations move markets. But their backing is not a badge of brilliance. It is, at best, a sign of short-sightedness, a mirror reflecting a misguided faith in efficiency over artistry. To invest in a system that undervalues human expertise in favor of digital shortcuts is to champion a future built on shaky sands. Will the lenders, in their hunger for higher margins, ever learn to value the irreplaceable human element? Or will their investments lead them toward ruin when digital’s limits are exposed?

Funding flows for the digital future only to feed a corporate beast that cares little for craftsmanship and far more for profit. The corporate heart beats not for progress, but for padding its pockets. It is the artisans, the true stenographers, who deserve the wealth—those whose hands hold history in every stroke. This “parity” isn’t the promise of preservation, but the propagation of profit-driven mediocrity.

Poisonous Pessimism, Divisive Digitalism

Now let us turn to the tale of toxic positivity and anti-digital angst. Day paints these two camps as opponents, clashing in a cacophony of confusion. But these aren’t the true enemies—these are just the distractions. The real threat lies in the corporate world’s cunning control, a world where we, the craftsmen of the courtroom and conference, are caught in a corporate cage, neither truly free nor fairly paid. The divide isn’t between positivity and anti-digital; the divide is between those who understand the value of real work and those who let digital devices dictate their worth.

Let’s abandon the false dichotomy of digital versus analog. The true question isn’t whether to embrace or reject the machine—it is whether we as a people will allow our skills to be diminished in the name of convenience. Will we permit ourselves to be rendered irrelevant by a machine’s mechanical murmur? Or will we stand firm, our skill and expertise shining brighter than any digital device?

Lackluster Loyalty – Let the Corporate Masters Count Their Coins

For all of his lamenting, Day fails to notice a crucial truth—corporations and their backers are not the misunderstood victims of the market. No, they are the victors in a rigged game, and they’ve been playing us for years. The lack of unity, the disjointed ranks, and the divisiveness that Day decries are not weaknesses but a sign of the system’s strength. The system thrives on division, on distracting us with false hope, and on profiting from our fractured field. Digital pay parity is just another tactic in this timeless strategy—a promise of equality that ultimately benefits only those already at the top.

Irreplaceable? Not If You’re Replaced

The notion that “I am irreplaceable” is not a delusion—it is a truth in training. The digital future cannot and will not replace the expertise, the nuance, and the expertise of the human hand, no matter how often it is repeated. Machines lack the depth of decision, the ability to adapt, to perceive the nuances of meaning, to sense the shifting rhythms of the spoken word. Those who claim that we are headed toward a digital dominance are not acknowledging the very real limits of technology.

And so, let us not pretend that digital’s rise is anything but a corporate calculation—a calculated, cold climb toward convenience over craftsmanship. To counter this claim, we must stand strong in our belief in human skill, not let the cold clatter of machines dictate our destiny.

Final Flourish: A Future of Fortitude and Faith

So, let us end with a flourish, for we are not defeated yet. Digital pay parity will not save us. It is not a silver lining, nor a shining solution. The future of stenography lies not in accepting digital as a tool of equal worth, but in reasserting the irreplaceable value of human expertise. Let us not be seduced by a false promise of parity. Let us rise in the knowledge that true equality, true value, will come from upholding the art and the artisans, not by succumbing to the corporate tide.

For the future is not digital—it is human. Always has been. Always will be.

The Importance of Allowing Full Interpretation in Legal Proceedings

Attorneys often work with interpreters when handling cases that involve witnesses or clients who speak languages other than English. While some attorneys may have a working knowledge of the language being interpreted, it is crucial to allow the interpreter to fully interpret all statements into English. This practice ensures clarity, accuracy, and a reliable legal record.

The Role of the Interpreter in Legal Proceedings

Interpreters serve a vital role in legal settings by facilitating communication between parties who do not share a common language. Their primary responsibility is to provide a precise and complete translation of testimony to maintain the integrity of the legal record. When an attorney understands the language being interpreted, there may be a temptation to bypass interpretation. However, this can lead to incomplete records, misunderstandings, and potential disputes over what was actually said.

The Perspective of the Court Reporter

Court reporters are essential in creating accurate and reliable transcripts of legal proceedings. When a deponent speaks a language other than English, the reporter relies on the interpreter to provide a complete translation. If statements are not fully interpreted, it becomes incredibly difficult for the court reporter to capture the testimony in its entirety. Court reporters must provide a verbatim transcript, which includes every word spoken in the proceeding. Gaps in the interpretation make this task more challenging and can result in incomplete, inaccurate, or unclear records.

In situations where the interpreter does not provide a full translation, the court reporter may be forced to indicate the lack of interpretation in the transcript. This can create confusion and make it harder for all parties involved to understand what transpired. Furthermore, if the case goes to appeal or if questions arise about the accuracy of the transcript, incomplete interpretation can complicate the resolution of these issues.

Why Every Statement Should Be Interpreted

1. Ensuring a Clear and Truthful Record

Legal proceedings rely on verbatim transcripts to document testimony accurately. If a deponent speaks in a language other than English, their words must be fully interpreted to maintain the integrity of the record. Omitting translations can result in gaps, misinterpretations, or ambiguity in the official transcript.

Consider the following exchange:

Q: “Did the car drive past you?”

A: “Yes, it passed me, but I didn’t notice it backing up toward me.”

Q: “Understood.”

A: (Spoken in Spanish; not interpreted into English)

Q: “So your statement is that the car just passed by?”

Q: “Could you clarify what you just said?”

A: (Spoken in Spanish; not interpreted into English)

Q: “Is that correct?”

A: (Spoken in Spanish; not interpreted into English)

Q: “Yes.”

In this scenario, critical portions of the testimony remain untranslated. If a dispute arises regarding the deponent’s exact words, attorneys and the court may lack a complete record to resolve inconsistencies.

2. Preserving Nuances and Context

Legal statements are often nuanced, and slight variations in language can significantly alter the meaning of testimony. When an interpreter fully translates each statement, they ensure that attorneys, the judge, and the jury understand not only the content but also the tone and implications of the deponent’s words. Without full interpretation, subtle but critical details may be lost.

3. Facilitating Equal Understanding for All Counsel

Not all attorneys, judges, or court reporters will understand the non-English language being spoken. If statements are not fully interpreted, counsel who do not speak the language may be at a disadvantage. They may miss objections, inconsistencies, or important statements that could impact their case strategy. Providing complete interpretation ensures that all parties have the same access to information and can respond appropriately.

Best Practices for Attorneys Working with Interpreters

To maximize the effectiveness of interpretation in legal proceedings, attorneys should:

  • Allow interpreters to fully interpret every spoken word to ensure a complete and accurate record.
  • Refrain from summarizing or paraphrasing statements in another language, even if they understand it.
  • Ensure that court reporters transcribe the full interpretation, rather than leaving untranslated gaps in the record.
  • Clarify any ambiguous statements by requesting a re-interpretation, if needed.

Conclusion

In legal proceedings, precision and accuracy are paramount. Attorneys must recognize the critical role of interpreters in creating a complete and truthful record. By allowing interpreters to fully interpret every statement into English, attorneys can ensure that all parties have equal access to testimony, preserve important nuances, and uphold the integrity of the legal process. Adopting these best practices ultimately leads to fairer, clearer, and more effective legal outcomes.

Denise A. Tugade’s Appointment to the Court Reporters Board is a Possible Threat to the Future of Court Reporting in California

The recent appointment of Denise A. Tugade to the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) on February 11, 2025 has raised serious concerns within the court reporting community. While Tugade brings a wealth of experience in government relations and public policy, her appointment signals an unwelcome turn for the profession, especially when considering her ties to SEIU United Health Workers (UHW) West and Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), both of which have been involved in efforts that many court reporters see as detrimental to their careers.

​Concerns within the court reporting community are further amplified by the presence of board members with ties to Bill Gates, a prominent advocate for and investor and developer of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology, as as highlighted in the article “A Fox Inside the Chicken Coop: Do you Know Who is on the CA Court Reporters Board?” published on November 7, 2024. Notably, Jeff Raikes, former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, serves on the advisory board of Roar Social, a philanthropic social media platform. While there is no direct evidence that the Gates Foundation has invested in Roar Social, the involvement of key individuals associated with the foundation suggests a potential alignment with Gates’ longstanding efforts in advancing ASR technologies. This connection raises apprehensions about a possible bias toward favoring ASR technologies over traditional stenography, posing a threat to the roles of human court reporters and the accuracy of legal transcripts.​

Tugade’s background and the history of the SEIU’s actions, combined with her connection to Gonzalez—who has been a vocal advocate for replacing human court reporters with automated systems—suggest that her appointment may not bode well for the future of court reporting in California.

A Closer Look at Denise A. Tugade’s Background

Denise A. Tugade’s resume boasts significant experience in government relations and policy, with a notable history of working as a Legislative Director for Assemblymember Christy Smith and in various roles within the California State Assembly. She has also worked as a Legislative Aide for Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, whose stance on court reporters has drawn significant criticism from the profession.

But it is Tugade’s current role as a Government Relations Advocate for SEIU UHW West, a union that represents healthcare workers, which is most concerning for court reporters. The SEIU has a history of representing official court reporters at Los Angeles Superior Court, wher, most notably in 2012, due to a budget shortfall of $20 million California, the court faced tough decisions about which employee groups to lay off. The Superior Courts chose to target two of the highest-paid employee groups: court reporters and social workers. While the union represented both groups, the SEIU ultimately decided to sacrifice the court reporters, allowing them to be laid off in favor of protecting the social workers. The union’s failure to stand against this decision resulted in the loss of over 80 skilled court reporting jobs, a blow that is still felt within the profession today.

While there is no direct evidence to suggest that Denise Tugade had a role in the 2012 layoff decision, her ties to SEIU make it clear that she is part of an organization that has historically shown little regard for the preservation of the court reporting profession. SEIU’s decision to allow these layoffs without significant opposition raises concerns that Tugade’s perspective on court reporting may not be in line with the interests of those working within the profession.

The Controversial Stance of Lorena Gonzalez

Adding to the concern surrounding Tugade’s appointment is her close relationship with Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez. Tugade’s time working as a Legislative Aide for Gonzalez gives her direct experience in a political office that has been openly critical of the court reporting profession. Gonzalez has been a staunch advocate for the use of technological solutions, such as automated transcription services and artificial intelligence (AI), to replace human court reporters. Her push for automation and digital solutions is seen by many in the court reporting industry as an existential threat to the profession, undermining the quality of transcriptions and replacing skilled professionals with potentially unreliable machines.

Gonzalez’s position on this issue has been polarizing, with advocates for the court reporting profession warning that her proposals could lead to job losses and a decline in the quality of legal records. Tugade’s connection to Gonzalez, particularly her work as a Legislative Aide in Gonzalez’s office, raises the question of whether Tugade shares her former boss’s vision for the future of court reporting. Given that Tugade’s career has been defined by her involvement in political advocacy and labor relations, it is likely that her views on this issue are shaped by her ties to political figures like Gonzalez, whose stance on court reporting is seen as directly threatening to the profession.

​Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez has been instrumental in legislative efforts impacting court reporting in California. Notably, she authored Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), which reclassified many independent contractors as employees. This reclassification affected freelance court reporters, potentially altering their employment status and work arrangements. Additionally, Gonzalez’s legislative initiatives have included resolutions such as ACR14, which recognized California Court Reporting and Captioning Week, highlighting the importance of the profession. Her legislative actions reflect a complex relationship with the court reporting industry, balancing recognition with regulatory changes that have significant implications for practitioners.

The SEIU’s Role in Disrupting Court Reporting

The SEIU’s failure to protect the court reporting profession was most evident during the 2012 layoffs in Los Angeles. When the Superior Court faced a budget shortfall and needed to cut positions, SEIU, which represented both court reporters and social workers, chose to protect the social workers, allowing the court reporters to be laid off without opposition. This decision demonstrated a clear lack of commitment to preserving court reporting jobs at a critical moment.

For court reporters, this raises important questions about Tugade’s loyalty to the interests of the profession. As a key advocate for SEIU UHW West, Tugade is closely tied to a union that has shown a willingness to sacrifice the livelihoods of court reporters when faced with difficult financial decisions. With Tugade now in a position to influence decisions about court reporters on the CRB, it is unclear whether she will act in the best interests of those who rely on the profession for their livelihoods.

What Does This Mean for the Future of Court Reporting?

Tugade’s recent appointment to the Court Reporters Board is especially concerning in light of her background and affiliations. The CRB’s role is to regulate the court reporting profession, ensure that high standards are maintained, and protect the interests of court reporters. However, with Tugade’s ties to SEIU, a union that has historically undermined the profession, and her connections to Assemblymember Gonzalez, a key proponent of replacing human court reporters with automated systems, it seems unlikely that she will advocate for policies that protect and preserve the profession.

Instead, Tugade’s presence on the CRB could signal a move toward greater acceptance of technology-driven solutions that threaten the jobs of court reporters. Her connections to both SEIU and Gonzalez suggest that she may be inclined to support initiatives that prioritize cost-saving measures over maintaining the integrity and quality of court reporting in California courts.

A Profession at Risk

Court reporters in California have already faced significant challenges in recent years, from budget cuts to the increasing use of technology in the courtroom. The appointment of Denise A. Tugade to the Court Reporters Board raises the prospect that these challenges will only increase. With her ties to SEIU, a union that has historically shown little regard for court reporters, and her relationship with Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who has been a vocal proponent of automated transcription services, Tugade’s role on the CRB could result in policies that undermine the profession.

Court reporters play a vital role in the judicial system, ensuring that the record of court proceedings is accurate, reliable, and complete. The decisions made by the CRB in the coming years will have a lasting impact on the profession, and with Tugade’s appointment, there is genuine concern that the interests of court reporters will not be adequately represented.

In conclusion, the appointment of Denise A. Tugade to the Court Reporters Board is a troubling development for the future of court reporting in California. Her deep ties to SEIU and Assemblymember Gonzalez suggest that she may be more aligned with efforts to replace human court reporters with technology, rather than protecting and preserving the profession. For the many court reporters who rely on their jobs to make a living, Tugade’s appointment represents a dangerous step toward a future where the profession is sidelined in favor of cost-cutting measures and technological innovation that could erode the quality of justice in California’s courts.

The Digital Court Reporting Scam – How Aspiring Court Reporters Are Being Duped

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged in the legal industry: prospective court reporting students are being misled into enrolling in digital court reporting programs that, in many cases, will not help them achieve their career goals. In states like California, where digital recording of legal proceedings is illegal, these programs are particularly problematic. Many students believe they are training to become licensed court reporters, only to find out later that their coursework is virtually useless in their state.

The Rise of Digital Court Reporting Programs

Traditional court reporting, which relies on highly-trained stenographers to transcribe proceedings verbatim in real time, is a crucial element of the legal system. However, with these self-proclaimed advancements in technology (they’re not advancements), some institutions and private organizations have begun pushing a different model—digital court reporting. In this approach, rather than using stenographic shorthand reporters, proceedings are recorded using digital audio equipment, and transcripts are later produced from the recordings by unlicensed workers, sometimes located overseas. This is not an advancement in technology by any means!

In fact, this method is a step backward for court reporting, taking it back nearly a century. According to the Court Reporters Board (CRB), a transcript must be taken down live, with the court reporter witnessing and recording proceedings verbatim in real time. Any later additions or modifications to the transcript are not allowed and are considered nonexistent from a legal standpoint. If a court reporter did not capture the words on their stenographic machine as they were spoken, those words are deemed never to have been said, and the reporter cannot certify the transcript.

In fact, court reporters are not required to take down testimony of a video deposition played in court because they were not present when the video was originally recorded. CA Local Rule of Court 2.1040.(d). The California Court Reporters Board (CRB) has ruled that a licensed and certified court reporter must be physically present at the proceedings to authenticate and certify the transcript.

While digital court reporting might not be prohibited by licensure requirements in some states, it is entirely prohibited in states like California, and some 24 other states where licensing requirements exist. The problem arises when students are not properly informed about these restrictions before enrolling in digital court reporting programs. Many institutions, including universities, offer these courses without disclosing that they do not lead to licensure in states where stenography is required.

A Case in Point: CSUSB’s Digital Court Reporting Program

A recent Facebook comment highlights the growing concern about such programs. One individual reported that a prospective student reached out, asking if a particular university’s digital court reporting program was all she needed to become a court reporter. The student had been considering enrolling in the California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB) Digital Court Reporting program, under the assumption that it would provide the necessary training to enter the profession.

However, this program, like many others, is misleading in its presentation. The course description states that it prepares students to take the AAERT Certified Electronic Reporter Exam, but does not clarify that this certification is not valid in California for court reporters. In fact, in California:

  • Digital recording of legal proceedings is illegal in courtrooms. In order for transcripts to be admitted as evidence in CA courts, it must be certified by a CA CSR. Under California Code of Civil Procedure 2025.330, depositions must be reported by an authorized officer, meaning, a certified court reporter (CSR), to ensure accuracy and reliability.
  • Using the term “Digital Court Reporter” is illegal in CA.
  • A Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) license is required to work as a court reporter in CA and 24 other states.

Despite these facts, CSUSB and similar programs continue to market digital court reporting courses without clearly stating that they do not meet California’s legal requirements. This creates confusion among students, many of whom only discover the truth after spending time and money on the program.

The Consequences for Misled Students

When students unknowingly enroll in digital court reporting programs, they often face devastating consequences:

  1. Wasted Time and Money – Many students invest thousands of dollars in coursework that ultimately does not help them become licensed court reporters.
  2. No Career Path in Their State – Students in California, for example, cannot legally work as court reporters using digital recording methods, rendering their training useless.
  3. False Sense of Readiness – Graduates of these programs may believe they are prepared to enter the workforce, only to discover they need to start over with a legitimate stenographic court reporting program.
  4. Lost Trust in the Education System – Institutions that offer these misleading programs contribute to a growing distrust of higher education and vocational training providers.

Why Universities Offer These Programs

If digital court reporting is not a viable career path in states like California, why do universities continue to offer these programs? The answer is simple: profit.

Many educational institutions have partnered with online training providers to offer career development courses without fully vetting their applicability to state regulations. These programs often operate on a revenue-sharing model, where the university benefits financially from enrollments without taking responsibility for student outcomes. As a result, students are left with subpar education and no real career prospects, while the university profits from their tuition fees.

How to Avoid Falling for a Digital Court Reporting Scam

If you are considering a career in court reporting, take the following steps to ensure you enroll in a legitimate program:

  1. Research Your State’s Requirements – Before signing up for any course, check the licensing and certification requirements for court reporters in your state. In California, only Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) can legally work in courtrooms. Check with the California Court Reporters Board (CRB). States with licensing requirements have their own Court Reporters Board.
  2. Verify Accreditation – Legitimate court reporting programs should be accredited by the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), the only recognized accrediting body for stenographic machine court reporting programs in the country. While stenographic voicewriting programs are growing in popularity, and California has received legislative approval for them, the NCRA has yet to recognize voicewriters, meaning there are currently no accredited programs for voicewriting anywhere in the U.S. Additionally, in California, the only NCRA-accredited shorthand reporter training program is South Coast College, in Orange, CA (my alma mater).
  3. Look for Stenographic Training – Any program that focuses on digital recording, rather than stenographic shorthand, is unlikely to meet licensing requirements in California and other states that require steno-based court reporting.
  4. Read the Fine Print – If a program claims to prepare you for certification, ensure that the certification is recognized in your state. In California, the only certification that matters for court reporting is the CSR license.
  5. Speak with Professionals in the Industry – Reach out to working court reporters or industry associations to get guidance on legitimate training options.

Advocacy and Awareness – Fighting Back Against Misleading Programs

The court reporting industry must take a stand against misleading digital court reporting programs. Advocacy groups, professional associations, and working court reporters can help by:

  • Educating prospective students about the risks of enrolling in digital court reporting programs that do not lead to licensure.
  • Pressuring universities to discontinue misleading programs or require them to provide full disclosure about the limitations of their coursework.
  • Lobbying for legal action against institutions that falsely advertise their programs as viable pathways to court reporting careers. (Hello, DRA and CCRA!)

Conclusion: The Need for Greater Transparency

The proliferation of digital court reporting programs is a growing concern, especially for students in states where these programs do not meet licensing requirements. Institutions that offer such programs without clear disclosures are doing a disservice to students, wasting their time and money while failing to prepare them for legitimate careers.

If you are considering a career in court reporting, do your due diligence before enrolling in any program. The only way to become a licensed court reporter in California is through an accredited stenographic training program that leads to a Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) license. Anything else is a costly detour that will leave you unqualified for the profession.

It’s time for universities and online education providers to take responsibility and provide honest, transparent information about their programs. Until then, prospective students must remain vigilant and informed to avoid falling victim to this growing educational scam.

SITC/Day Violates Louisiana Solicitation and Volunteer Laws, Again

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

The Many Reasons Court Reporters Love Their Profession

Court reporting is more than just a career—it’s a passion. For those who dedicate their lives to the profession, it is an art form, a puzzle, and a performance all in one. From the rhythm of the stenograph machine to the thrill of catching every word in a fast-paced deposition, court reporters find joy and fulfillment in their work. Here’s a deep dive into what makes this career so rewarding and why court reporters continue to fight for the integrity of their profession.

The Art of Writing on the Machine

At the heart of court reporting is the stenograph machine. There’s something deeply satisfying about fingers gliding over the keys, capturing the spoken word at lightning speed. Many reporters describe it as a game, a competition against themselves to achieve greater accuracy and speed. It’s an intellectual challenge, requiring dexterity, skill, and focus.

Every day, court reporters put their training to the test, transcribing conversations with an almost musical rhythm. The act of writing itself is a pleasure, transforming spoken language into a permanent record with precision and elegance.

The Thrill of the Courtroom and Deposition Rooms

Court reporters thrive in legal environments. Whether it’s a grand courtroom, a deposition room, or even a Zoom deposition, the atmosphere of the legal process is exhilarating. The formality, the intensity, and the responsibility of capturing the truth create a sense of purpose and excitement.

There’s a unique satisfaction in witnessing justice unfold firsthand. Court reporters sit in the front row of legal battles, observing attorneys at the height of their craft. The best attorneys are masterful in their questioning, slowly leading witnesses toward revelations they never saw coming. Being a part of that process, recording history in real-time, is an incredible experience.

The Love of Language and Word-Finding

Court reporters are wordsmiths. They have an innate love for language, constantly engaging in word-finding exercises throughout their work. Whether it’s deciphering complex legal terminology, recognizing accents and dialects, or ensuring precise punctuation, court reporters are always playing with words.

This intellectual stimulation keeps the job fresh and exciting. Even when cases cover seemingly mundane topics, like minor car accidents, the challenge of transcribing with accuracy and speed makes the task enjoyable. Some reporters even compare it to a video game—pushing themselves to achieve the highest “score” in accuracy and efficiency every day.

The Satisfaction of Watching Truth Unfold

One of the most fascinating aspects of court reporting is seeing the truth come to light. When a skilled attorney methodically questions a witness, building up to a crucial moment, it feels like a theatrical performance. Court reporters get a front-row seat to these dramatic reveals, knowing they are documenting a pivotal moment in a case.

Working on multiple depositions in a single case allows court reporters to recognize patterns—who is bending the truth, who is omitting key details, and who is finally revealing critical information. Being part of the justice system in this way is deeply rewarding.

The Professionalism of Court Reporting

For true court reporters, this career is more than just a job—it is a profession. There is pride in the work, in the precision, and in the ethical standards that court reporters uphold. It is disheartening to see some treat it as just another paycheck, but for those who truly love the profession, it’s a calling.

The threat to court reporting doesn’t come from AI, as many initially feared. Instead, it comes from corporations—the “big boxes”—that prioritize profit over quality, pushing for electronic recording (ER) methods that lack the reliability and skill of a trained human stenographer. Court reporters are fighting to protect the profession, advocating for accuracy and integrity over cost-cutting shortcuts.

The Importance of Advocacy and Community

Passionate court reporters don’t just do their job—they fight for the future of their profession. Joining state associations and standing up against lobbying efforts that threaten court reporting is crucial. Many reporters serve on boards, attend meetings, and push for legislation that protects the industry from subpar alternatives.

Every court reporter’s voice matters. Whether it’s through direct advocacy, sharing experiences, or offering new strategies to combat corporate threats, every effort contributes to preserving the integrity of the profession. The community of court reporters is strong, bound together by a shared love for their craft and a commitment to keeping it alive.

The Timelessness of the Work

There’s something almost meditative about being fully immersed in writing during a deposition or court proceeding. Time seems to stop. The outside world fades away, leaving only the words, the record, and the responsibility of capturing it all.

Even on tough days, even when dealing with difficult people, the love for the profession remains. Many court reporters have felt this passion since they were young, drawn to the career by its unique blend of skill, challenge, and significance. That passion doesn’t fade—it only deepens with experience.

Conclusion

Court reporting is a career unlike any other. It offers intellectual stimulation, a front-row seat to the legal system, and the satisfaction of preserving history with precision and integrity. The act of writing, the thrill of the courtroom, the love of language, and the pursuit of truth make this profession endlessly rewarding.

For those who truly love court reporting, it’s not just a job—it’s a profession worth fighting for. Whether through advocacy, education, or simply continuing to perform at the highest level, court reporters are ensuring their invaluable role remains respected and protected for generations to come.

So to all the court reporters who still feel the excitement of their first deposition, who get lost in the rhythm of their machine, and who take pride in their work—keep fighting. Your profession matters, your words matter, and your passion will keep this industry alive.

Empowering Women in Court Reporting for Success and Fulfillment

In today’s dynamic professional landscape, empowering women in the workplace is more critical than ever. This is especially true in the field of court reporting, a profession that offers flexibility, financial independence, and career growth. However, despite the increasing number of women in the industry, challenges remain that can impact their professional success and overall well-being. By implementing strategic approaches, women in court reporting can build thriving careers while fostering an environment of empowerment and support.

The Role of Women in Court Reporting

Court reporting is a profession that requires precision, attention to detail, and excellent communication skills. Women have been at the forefront of this field for decades, demonstrating resilience and adaptability in an ever-evolving legal environment. As the demand for skilled court reporters continues to rise, it is essential to ensure that women in this industry are provided with the resources, opportunities, and support they need to excel.

Building a Strong Support Network

A robust professional network can be one of the most valuable assets for women in court reporting. Developing relationships with mentors, colleagues, and industry professionals can open doors to career advancement, skill enhancement, and job opportunities.

  • Mentorship and Sponsorship: Connecting with experienced professionals can provide guidance, career advice, and industry insights that help navigate challenges.
  • Professional Associations: Organizations such as the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) offer networking opportunities, training, and advocacy programs that support women in the field.
  • Online Communities and Support Groups: Engaging in online forums and social media groups dedicated to court reporting can create a sense of community and provide resources for career growth.

Advocating for Equal Pay and Opportunities

Despite being a predominantly female-driven profession, court reporters may still face wage disparities and limited leadership opportunities. Women must take proactive steps to ensure they receive fair compensation and recognition for their expertise.

  • Rate Negotiation: Women should confidently negotiate rates by researching industry standards and articulating their value to agencies.
  • Advancing into Leadership Roles: Official Court Reporters can take on leadership positions within their organizations, advocate for better workplace policies, and contribute to shaping the industry’s future.
  • Continuing Education: Staying updated on certifications, technological advancements, and new reporting techniques can enhance employability and earning potential.

Achieving Work-Life Balance

One of the significant advantages of a career in court reporting is the potential for work-life balance. However, managing workload, personal commitments, and career growth requires intentional strategies.

  • Setting Boundaries: Establishing clear work hours and prioritizing personal time can prevent burnout and enhance overall well-being.
  • Flexible Work Options: Many court reporters work as freelancers, allowing them to control their schedules and workload. Exploring remote and part-time opportunities can help create a sustainable career.
  • Self-Care and Wellness: Taking breaks, engaging in hobbies, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle contribute to long-term success and job satisfaction.

Promoting Women in Leadership Positions

Women in court reporting have the potential to influence the industry by stepping into leadership roles and advocating for inclusive policies. Leadership can take various forms, from running a successful reporting business to mentoring aspiring professionals.

  • Establishing Mentorship Programs: Encouraging mentorship among women can create a supportive environment and ensure the continued success of future generations.
  • Encouraging Diversity and Inclusion: Promoting a culture of diversity within the legal and reporting industries helps break down barriers and create equitable opportunities for all professionals.
  • Speaking at Industry Events: Women who share their experiences and expertise at conferences and seminars inspire others and contribute to the evolution of the profession.

The Role of Technology in Empowering Women in Court Reporting

Technology plays a crucial role in modern court reporting, offering innovative tools that enhance efficiency and accuracy. Women who embrace technological advancements can gain a competitive edge in the industry.

  • Real-Time Reporting: Advancements in real-time transcription and voice recognition software enable court reporters to deliver accurate records faster.
  • Remote Depositions: Virtual depositions and remote court reporting have expanded opportunities for women to work from home and reach a broader client base.
  • Online Training and Certification: E-learning platforms allow court reporters to continue their education and stay updated on industry trends without geographical limitations.

Investing in Professional Development

Continuous learning is essential for career growth in court reporting. Women who invest in their professional development can stay competitive and achieve long-term success.

  • Certifications and Specializations: Earning certifications such as the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) or Certified Realtime Reporter (CRR) can enhance credibility and open doors to higher-paying opportunities.
  • Skill Enhancement: Developing expertise in realtime in specialized areas, such as asbestos, toxic tort, medicolegal, or patent litigation can increase job prospects and financial stability.
  • Attending Workshops and Conferences: Industry events provide opportunities to learn from experts, network with peers, and stay updated on emerging trends.

Celebrating Women’s Achievements in Court Reporting

Recognizing and celebrating the accomplishments of women in court reporting fosters a culture of empowerment and motivation. Women who are acknowledged for their contributions are more likely to inspire others and drive positive change in the industry.

  • Industry Awards and Recognition Programs: Organizations that highlight the achievements of women in court reporting contribute to increased visibility and credibility.
  • Sharing Success Stories: Featuring women’s success stories in industry publications, social media, and events can encourage others to pursue their aspirations.
  • Encouraging Peer Recognition: Acknowledging and supporting colleagues’ accomplishments creates a positive and uplifting work environment.

The Future of Women in Court Reporting

As the legal industry evolves, so do the opportunities for women in court reporting. By embracing innovation, advocating for equal opportunities, and fostering supportive networks, women can continue to thrive in this field.

  • Encouraging the Next Generation: Introducing young women to court reporting through educational initiatives and outreach programs ensures the profession remains strong and diverse.
  • Advocating for Workplace Policies: Pushing for policies that promote work-life balance, fair compensation, and career advancement will benefit women in the long run.
  • Embracing Change: Staying adaptable and open to new possibilities allows women in court reporting to navigate challenges and seize emerging opportunities.

Conclusion

Empowering women in court reporting is essential for fostering a thriving, diverse, and innovative industry. By building strong support networks, advocating for equal opportunities, embracing technological advancements, and investing in professional development, women can continue to break barriers and achieve lasting success. As the profession evolves, the collective efforts of individuals and organizations will play a crucial role in creating an inclusive and empowering workplace for all court reporters.

Success of a Court Reporter: Defining and Measuring Achievement

Success is a multifaceted concept that varies from person to person, and the court reporting profession is no exception. While some court reporters define success by financial achievements, others measure it by their professional influence, industry recognition, or personal satisfaction. But what does it truly mean to be a “successful” court reporter? How do we quantify success in this profession? Is it by certifications, income, the number of clients, or something more intangible? Let’s delve into the many dimensions of success for a court reporter and explore what truly defines excellence in the field.

Defining Success in Court Reporting

To understand success in court reporting, we must first recognize that the profession itself is diverse, with various paths to achievement. Some reporters work as freelancers, others operate their own agencies, while some prefer the stability of an officialship. Each of these career trajectories carries its own markers of success.

Success in court reporting can generally be categorized into three main areas: professional credibility, financial stability, and industry influence. These three areas intersect in different ways for different individuals, shaping their personal definitions of success.

Measuring Success in Court Reporting

Certifications and Professional Credentials

One of the most widely acknowledged markers of success in court reporting is certification. Achieving designations like the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR), Certified Realtime Reporter (CRR), or Registered Diplomate Reporter (RDR) demonstrates expertise and commitment to the profession. These certifications not only open doors to higher-paying jobs but also solidify a reporter’s credibility among clients and colleagues.

Income and Financial Success

For many, success is measured by financial stability and growth. A high income often correlates with a reporter’s skill, experience, and reputation. Those who take on high-profile depositions, specialize in realtime reporting, or own their own agencies tend to earn significantly more than entry-level reporters. However, financial success is not always indicative of quality. A reporter may be in high demand due to aggressive marketing rather than superior skill.

Client Demand and Reputation

The number of clients a court reporter has and the frequency of repeat requests can serve as a measure of success. Attorneys, judges, and law firms often develop preferences for certain reporters based on reliability, professionalism, and perceived competence. However, as seen in real-world cases, client demand does not always reflect technical excellence—some reporters with high demand may struggle with translation accuracy or grammar, relying heavily on scopists and proofreaders.

Owning a Court Reporting Agency

Another benchmark of success is entrepreneurship. Some court reporters transition from freelancers to agency owners, managing teams of reporters and securing large contracts. While owning an agency can be lucrative, it also comes with additional responsibilities, such as managing client relationships, overseeing payroll, and ensuring timely transcript delivery. For some, the ability to scale their business and create opportunities for others is the ultimate measure of success.

Leadership in Associations

Holding leadership positions in state or national associations, such as the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), is another way court reporters gauge their success. Serving as a board member, president, or committee chair signifies respect and influence within the industry. These positions provide opportunities to shape the future of court reporting, advocate for legislative changes, and mentor up-and-coming reporters.

Lifestyle and Material Markers

For some court reporters, success is reflected in their lifestyle—the ability to purchase luxury items, drive exotic cars, and travel internationally. Owning a collection of Louis Vuitton bags, sporting a high-end Rolex, or taking extravagant vacations to Europe or the Maldives can serve as tangible markers of financial achievement. While these material possessions may indicate financial prosperity, they do not necessarily equate to professional skill or credibility. A court reporter may drive a luxury car yet struggle with producing clean realtime output. Conversely, a reporter with modest means may be one of the most skilled in the field, choosing to prioritize quality over quantity.

Mentorship and Giving Back

For many seasoned court reporters, success is about legacy. The number of mentees they have, the impact they make on new professionals, and the guidance they offer are crucial measures of success. Mentoring new reporters and helping them navigate the profession is another vital aspect of success, as it ensures the longevity and strength of the industry.

Speaking Engagements and Publications

Invitations to present at association conferences and publish articles in industry magazines reflect a court reporter’s standing and expertise. Those who frequently contribute to discussions on industry standards, technology advancements, and professional ethics are often seen as leaders in their field. Being invited to speak at conferences, write articles for the Journal of Court Reporting (JCR), and share expertise with the next generation can be a fulfilling achievement.

The Reality of Assessing Court Reporting Skill

Despite all these markers of success, how can one truly gauge the skill level of a court reporter? The truth is, an attorney or judge may have no real way of knowing how skilled a court reporter is unless they see the output—whether it’s a realtime feed or the final transcript.

For example, a reporter may be highly sought after, booked for numerous cases, and have attorneys specifically requesting their services. However, if their realtime feed on the judge’s screen is riddled with untranslated steno, it becomes clear that popularity does not always equal proficiency. Similarly, some reporters rely heavily on scopists and proofreaders to correct errors, making it difficult to discern their actual skill level.

On the other hand, there are reporters who can produce impeccable transcripts without external assistance, but choose to use scopists and proofreaders to maintain a high volume of work and maximize income. The reality is that different reporters have different strengths—some excel at technical accuracy, while others thrive in speed and efficiency.

What Defines True Success?

Ultimately, success in court reporting is subjective. Some define it by financial prosperity, others by professional recognition, and some by the ability to mentor and give back. The markers of success—certifications, income, client demand, leadership roles, material possessions, lifestyle, or mentorship—vary depending on individual goals and values.

However, at the core of it all, the true measure of success in court reporting should include the quality of work produced. A successful court reporter is not only in high demand, but also consistently delivers accurate, well-punctuated, and timely transcripts. While external accolades, luxury lifestyles, and material wealth may signal success to some, the real proof lies in the output—the transcripts, the realtime feeds, and the impact left on the profession. In the end, success is not just about how a reporter is perceived, but about the work they leave behind and the legacy they create in the field of court reporting.

Tip for Attorneys: Don’t Be Like Dennis—Plan Ahead and Order Your Court Reporter Early

Attorneys have a lot on their plates. Managing cases, meeting deadlines, drafting briefs, attending hearings, and dealing with clients can quickly add up to a whirlwind of responsibilities. However, one area where many attorneys tend to fall short is planning ahead for court reporting needs. While it may seem like a small detail in the grand scheme of things, not ordering a court reporter in advance can lead to unnecessary stress, scrambling, and even delays—ultimately jeopardizing the efficiency of your case and your reputation as a lawyer.

Imagine a scenario where an attorney—let’s call him “Dennis”—waits until the last minute to order a court reporter for a deposition. The deposition is scheduled for 9:00 a.m., and Dennis has a flight booked for later in the afternoon. As the day draws closer, Dennis realizes that he hasn’t confirmed whether a court reporter will be available. He scrambles to make calls, only to find that all of the reputable reporters are booked up. Dennis is left with no choice but to settle for a less-experienced reporter who is available, but that comes with its own set of challenges. The witness is late, and the deposition starts behind schedule. This throws off Dennis’s carefully planned day, and now he’s worried about missing his flight, not to mention the quality of the transcript.

This scenario is all too common, and the frustration it causes can easily be avoided with a little foresight. Here’s why planning ahead and ordering a court reporter early is not just a convenience, but a necessity for attorneys.

The Benefits of Planning Ahead

  1. Ensuring Availability
    Court reporters often have full schedules, especially during busy times. Depositions are scheduled well in advance, and reporters typically block off their time to accommodate these requests. If you wait until the last minute to order a reporter, you may find that everyone you trust is already booked. Having a court reporter lined up early ensures you get the professional you need, and it leaves you with peace of mind that your case won’t be delayed.
  2. Quality Control
    Court reporters are an essential part of the legal process. The accuracy of the deposition transcript is critical to the outcome of a case, and having an experienced, reputable reporter is paramount. If you delay in scheduling, you might end up having to reschedule the deposition until you can have a court reporter in attendance.
  3. Avoiding Stress
    Last-minute scrambling is stressful for everyone involved. When you fail to plan ahead, you increase the risk of creating chaos for yourself, your client, and the court reporter. As in Dennis’s case, the stress doesn’t end once the reporter finally arrives. Now you’re pressed for time, worried about getting your questions answered in the deposition, and scrambling to make your flight. This is a perfect storm for frustration and mistakes.
  4. Better Coordination with Other Parties
    Scheduling a deposition often involves coordinating with multiple parties: opposing counsel, clients, experts, witnesses, interpreters, and videographers. If you wait until the last minute to order your court reporter, it becomes much harder to ensure that all parties are available at the same time. Early scheduling of your reporter also allows everyone to adjust their schedules accordingly, reducing the risk of last-minute conflicts.
  5. Managing Your Time Effectively
    By ordering your court reporter well in advance, you give yourself the flexibility to manage your day more effectively. Instead of worrying about logistics, you can focus on preparing for the deposition, strategizing with your client, or getting in some extra work before your flight. Being proactive helps you avoid the constant tension of having too many things to do in too little time.

The High Cost of Last-Minute Decisions

Dennis’s story illustrates just how disruptive last-minute decisions can be. When attorneys fail to plan ahead, they create a domino effect of chaos that affects not just their own work, but also the work of everyone involved. If a court reporter isn’t confirmed in time, it can lead to delays that can’t be easily recovered from. Depositions may need to be rescheduled, witnesses might be unavailable on the new date, and time-sensitive court filings could be missed.

Moreover, rushing to find a court reporter at the last minute could end up being more expensive. Availability constraints can drive up prices, and you may not have the luxury of shopping around for the best rates. In some cases, attorneys end up with a reporter who isn’t the best fit for their case, resulting in not getting the services you need, such as realtime and expedited transcripts.

Conclusion

The lesson here is simple: don’t be like Dennis. Planning ahead when it comes to scheduling your court reporter is not only a way to reduce stress, but it also ensures that you are prepared to handle your case effectively. By booking your court reporter early, you ensure their availability, maintain the quality of your deposition transcripts, and eliminate unnecessary stress as you juggle multiple responsibilities. Attorneys who are proactive in their planning will have more time to focus on winning their cases, not scrambling to find a reporter at the last minute.

So, the next time you schedule a deposition, remember Dennis’s cautionary tale. Give yourself ample time to order a court reporter, and take one more worry off your plate. Your case, your clients, and your reputation will thank you.

Attorneys: A Great Transcript Starts with YOU!

In the fast-paced world of litigation, accuracy is paramount. Court transcripts serve as the definitive record of what transpired in a courtroom or deposition, and it is crucial that they are clear, precise, and professional. While the responsibility of creating these transcripts primarily falls to court reporters, the role of attorneys in ensuring that the record is accurate cannot be overstated. Attorneys have a unique influence on the process, and with a few thoughtful practices, they can help guarantee that the final transcript is the best possible representation of the proceedings.

Court reporters are highly skilled professionals whose job is to transcribe everything that is said in a court or deposition setting. However, even the most experienced court reporter needs the assistance of attorneys to ensure the record is flawless. By following some simple tips and best practices, attorneys can help maintain a clear and accurate record that serves the needs of everyone involved, especially for future appeals or legal references.

Here’s what court reporters wish attorneys knew—and how these steps can contribute to a smoother, more accurate, and professional court reporting process.

1. Speak Clearly and at a Moderate Pace

One of the most fundamental aspects of an accurate transcript is clear speech. Court reporters rely on what they hear to transcribe every word, and when an attorney or witness speaks too quickly or mumbles, it can result in unclear or even incorrect transcriptions.

Why this matters: In a courtroom, every word is important. Rapid or slurred speech, long pauses, or overlapping conversations can confuse the court reporter, leading to an inaccurate record. This could affect the outcome of the case, especially if the transcript is relied upon for an appeal or further legal proceedings.

What you can do: Attorneys should speak clearly and at a moderate pace. This doesn’t mean slowing down to a crawl, but rather speaking deliberately so the court reporter can capture each word accurately. When asking questions, ensure that they are concise and direct, minimizing unnecessary pauses or stumbles that can interfere with the transcript. Pausing briefly between questions and responses can give the court reporter the time they need to catch up.

2. Properly Mark and Handle Exhibits

Exhibits play an essential role in legal proceedings, often serving as crucial evidence that will later be referred to in court or in legal documents. However, if exhibits are not handled and marked properly, it can lead to confusion during the transcription process.

Why this matters: If exhibits are introduced without clear marking or identification, there can be discrepancies in the transcript about what was referenced, when it was introduced, and the context behind it. For example, without proper clarification, the transcript may incorrectly reference a document or fail to identify which exhibit is being discussed during testimony.

What you can do: Attorneys should make sure to properly mark and identify each exhibit as it is introduced in the proceeding. When introducing exhibits, be sure to clearly state the exhibit number or letter and ensure that it is described thoroughly. This will allow the court reporter to accurately note which document or item is being discussed. Additionally, avoid passing exhibits around without announcing their introduction to the record. It’s crucial that the court reporter is aware of each exhibit’s relevance to the case.

3. Understand Turnaround Times and Costs

Another key aspect of the court reporting process is the turnaround time required for preparing the final transcript. Court reporters work diligently to transcribe everything from daily proceedings to longer depositions. Depending on the nature of the case, some transcripts need to be prepared quickly, while others may have more flexible deadlines.

Why this matters: Understanding the turnaround times and the associated costs can help attorneys plan better and ensure they don’t rush the process. Asking for transcripts too quickly without understanding the costs involved can strain the court reporter’s ability to provide an accurate and well-prepared record.

What you can do: Before requesting a transcript, attorneys should inquire about standard turnaround times for a particular type of hearing or deposition. For example, many court reporters have a standard 5-to-7-day turnaround for transcripts, but expedited services are often available at a higher cost. It’s crucial for attorneys to factor in these timeframes and associated costs when planning for the next steps in their case. By understanding the reporter’s timeline, attorneys can avoid unnecessary pressure on the court reporter and ensure a polished and complete record.

4. Be Mindful of Off-the-Record Conversations

In any courtroom or deposition setting, there are times when conversations happen off the record, such as side discussions between attorneys, private exchanges with clients, or conversations about logistics. While these conversations might seem harmless or insignificant at the time, they can create confusion when the record is transcribed, especially if the off-the-record moments aren’t acknowledged properly.

Why this matters: Court reporters are trained to capture everything that occurs in a proceeding, and off-the-record conversations can make it difficult to differentiate between what should be part of the official record and what should not. If not handled appropriately, off-the-record conversations can inadvertently be included in the transcript, leading to unnecessary confusion or errors.

What you can do: If a conversation is to be off the record, attorneys should clearly state this to the court reporter. For instance, stating, “This conversation is off the record” will help the reporter know that they are not required to transcribe the exchange. On the flip side, if a conversation is inadvertently taken off the record, it’s important to clarify immediately. Clear communication between attorneys and the court reporter about what is and isn’t on the record will ensure that the final transcript remains clean and accurate.

5. Provide Spellings for Unusual Names or Terms

In legal proceedings, it’s common for witnesses, expert testimony, or other parties to use uncommon names, legal terms, or technical jargon that may not be immediately recognizable to the court reporter. Spelling errors, mishearings, or unfamiliar terms can lead to confusion in the final transcript, which can ultimately affect the legal record.

Why this matters: If a name or term is misheard or incorrectly transcribed, it could impact the accuracy of the court record. The court reporter may struggle to spell uncommon or technical terms correctly without assistance, leading to errors in the transcript that could affect the case’s outcome.

What you can do: When introducing witnesses or using technical language, attorneys should provide the court reporter with the correct spelling of names and any unusual terms or phrases. This simple step will save time and avoid transcription errors. If there are difficult-to-spell names or technical terms that will be discussed throughout the hearing or deposition, it’s wise to provide a written list at the start of the session. This ensures the reporter has everything they need to accurately capture the record.

6. Treat Court Reporters as Neutral Professionals

Court reporters are professionals who are tasked with creating an impartial and accurate record of the proceedings. They are not involved in the substance of the case and should not be treated as though they have any stake in the outcome.

Why this matters: Court reporters must remain neutral and unbiased throughout the proceedings, and any undue pressure or expectations from the attorneys can undermine their ability to do their job. A professional and respectful working relationship with the court reporter is essential for a smooth and productive process.

What you can do: Attorneys should treat court reporters with the respect and professionalism they deserve. This means maintaining a professional tone, avoiding excessive distractions, and ensuring that all communication remains focused on the task at hand. Being courteous and collaborative will help the court reporter do their best work, and will ultimately contribute to a clear and reliable transcript.

Conclusion

The accuracy and professionalism of court transcripts are essential in ensuring that the record of legal proceedings is both clear and reliable. While court reporters are highly trained professionals who play a central role in this process, attorneys have a crucial responsibility to contribute to the success of the transcript. By following these simple tips—speaking clearly, marking exhibits properly, understanding turnaround times and costs, being mindful of off-the-record conversations, providing spellings for unusual names, and treating court reporters as neutral professionals—attorneys can help ensure that the record is accurate, complete, and ready for the test of time. Together, we can ensure that the legal process remains transparent, fair, and just.

The Importance of Maintaining a Poker Face as a Court Reporter

Court reporters play a crucial role in the legal system, capturing verbatim transcripts of proceedings that serve as official records for courts, attorneys, and other legal professionals. While their primary responsibility is to transcribe spoken words accurately, another essential, yet often overlooked aspect of their job, is the ability to maintain a neutral, expressionless demeanor—commonly referred to as a “poker face.” The importance of this skill cannot be overstated, as it directly impacts the perception of impartiality, professionalism, and the overall integrity of legal proceedings.

The Role of a Court Reporter

Court reporters, also known as stenographers or shorthand reporters, are responsible for recording every word spoken during depositions, hearings, trials, and other legal proceedings. They utilize specialized stenotype machines or voice writing technology to transcribe speech in real time. The accuracy and neutrality of their records are paramount, as they serve as official legal documents that can influence case outcomes. However, beyond their technical proficiency, court reporters must also adhere to a strict code of conduct that includes remaining impartial and refraining from any behavior that could be perceived as bias.

Why a Poker Face Matters

Court reporters witness a wide range of emotions, testimonies, and legal arguments. Some cases involve highly sensitive topics, shocking evidence, or heated exchanges between attorneys and witnesses. In such moments, the ability to maintain a composed and neutral expression is critical for several reasons:

1. Maintaining Professionalism

A court reporter’s role is not to express personal opinions or reactions, but to transcribe accurately. Displaying emotional reactions, such as shock, amusement, or disapproval, can undermine their professionalism. Attorneys, judges, and other legal professionals rely on court reporters to remain composed so they can perform their duties without distraction or concern about the reporter’s objectivity.

2. Preserving the Integrity of the Legal Process

Legal proceedings must be conducted in a manner that upholds fairness and impartiality. If a court reporter reacts visibly to testimony or arguments, it can create an impression of bias, even if unintended. For example, raising an eyebrow at a witness’s statement might suggest disbelief, potentially influencing how attorneys, jurors, or judges perceive the testimony. A neutral expression ensures that no party feels unfairly judged or scrutinized.

3. Avoiding Distractions in the Courtroom

A courtroom is a high-stakes environment where even minor distractions can have significant consequences. A court reporter who gasps, rolls their eyes, or smirks could inadvertently shift attention away from the legal arguments being made. Judges and attorneys require a focused environment to conduct their work effectively, and a neutral court reporter helps maintain this decorum.

4. Enhancing Personal and Professional Reputation

Court reporters who exhibit a composed and neutral demeanor earn the respect of legal professionals and colleagues. A reputation for discretion and professionalism can lead to greater career opportunities, as law firms and courts often prefer to work with individuals who demonstrate reliability and impartiality.

5. Handling Emotionally Charged Testimonies

Some cases involve heart-wrenching testimonies, disturbing crime scene details, or personal tragedies. A court reporter must resist the urge to react emotionally, even when faced with difficult or distressing information. While it is natural to feel empathy, visibly displaying it can disrupt proceedings and compromise the perception of impartiality. Developing the ability to compartmentalize emotions while on the job is essential for maintaining a professional demeanor.

Strategies for Maintaining a Poker Face

While maintaining a neutral expression may sound simple, it requires conscious effort and practice. Below are several strategies court reporters can use to perfect their poker face:

1. Practice Mindfulness and Emotional Regulation

Court reporters can benefit from mindfulness techniques, such as deep breathing, meditation, and self-awareness exercises. These practices help individuals control their emotional responses and remain calm, even in stressful situations. Being mindful of facial expressions and body language allows court reporters to make necessary adjustments before a reaction becomes visible.

2. Focus Solely on the Transcript

One effective way to prevent emotional reactions is to concentrate entirely on the task of transcribing. By focusing on capturing every word accurately, court reporters can shift their attention away from the content of the testimony and reduce the likelihood of responding emotionally.

3. Adopt a Neutral Posture and Expression

Maintaining a relaxed but neutral facial expression and body posture can prevent unintentional reactions. A slight downward gaze at the stenotype machine or screen, combined with minimal facial movement, can help court reporters avoid making noticeable expressions.

4. Develop Mental Resilience

Court reporters who work in emotionally intense environments should develop mental resilience to prevent distressing testimonies from affecting them personally. This may include speaking with mentors, joining professional support groups, or seeking guidance from experienced colleagues who have learned to navigate similar challenges.

5. Practice in Everyday Situations

A good poker face can be cultivated outside of the courtroom as well. Court reporters can practice maintaining a neutral expression while watching emotional movies, engaging in discussions with friends, or reading surprising news articles. The more they train themselves to control their expressions, the easier it will be to do so in a professional setting.

The Psychological Toll of Remaining Neutral

While maintaining a poker face is essential for court reporters, it can take a psychological toll over time. Constantly suppressing emotions can be mentally exhausting and may lead to stress or burnout. To counteract this, court reporters should prioritize self-care, including:

  • Taking breaks between emotionally intense cases
  • Engaging in hobbies and activities that promote relaxation
  • Seeking professional counseling, if needed
  • Talking to trusted colleagues about their experiences

By implementing these strategies, court reporters can maintain their professional composure while safeguarding their own mental well-being.

Conclusion

The ability to maintain a poker face is an indispensable skill for court reporters. Their role requires a level of neutrality and discretion that directly impacts the integrity of legal proceedings. By staying composed, court reporters contribute to the fairness and professionalism of the courtroom environment while also building a reputation for reliability and impartiality. Though it requires effort and practice, mastering the art of a poker face is a crucial aspect of excelling in the field of court reporting.

Handling Difficult Attorneys and Recovering from Stressful Jobs as a Court Reporter

Court reporting is a profession that demands precision, patience, and resilience. It’s a challenging job on the best of days, but when you’re faced with a difficult attorney, an uncontrollable witness, and an overwhelming environment, it can feel downright impossible. If you’ve ever walked out of a deposition or courtroom feeling like you’ve been through a battle, you’re not alone.

The inspiration for this article comes from a real-life experience that many court reporters can relate to. A recent job involved extreme crosstalk, an unruly witness, and an attorney who contributed to the chaos rather than controlling it. Despite multiple admonishments and efforts to maintain order, the session spiraled into an incomprehensible mess. The court reporter in question did what was necessary—protected the record, insisted on clarity, and refused to allow the legal process to override the necessity of accurate transcription. The aftermath? Both the attorney and reporter decided they never wanted to work together again.

While frustrating, these situations come with the territory. Below, we explore strategies for managing difficult attorneys, maintaining professionalism, and recovering from high-stress jobs.

Dealing with Difficult Attorneys

Some attorneys are wonderful to work with, while others can make a deposition feel like an uphill battle. When you encounter the latter, here’s how to navigate the situation:

1. Set the Tone Early

At the beginning of a proceeding, it helps to establish expectations. A simple statement such as, “For the clarity of the record, please ensure only one person speaks at a time,” can serve as a gentle yet firm reminder to everyone in the room.

2. Know When to Interrupt

If the crosstalk or rapid-fire questioning gets out of hand, don’t hesitate to interject. Use professional yet authoritative phrasing, such as:

  • “Excuse me, I need to ensure a clear record. Could you please repeat that?”
  • “One person at a time, please.”
  • “I need to clarify who is speaking.”

Your job is to ensure the transcript is accurate. If the situation gets out of control, it’s within your right—and duty—to step in.

3. Keep Emotions in Check

Even when an attorney is combative, dismissive, or outright rude, it’s crucial to remain professional. Stay calm, neutral, and unwavering in your commitment to the record. If necessary, take a deep breath and remind yourself: Their attitude is not a reflection of your skills or professionalism.

4. Document Issues and Advocate for Yourself

If an attorney is consistently difficult, document your experience and report it to your agency. If you feel comfortable, communicate with the hiring firm about any serious concerns. While you can’t always control where you’re assigned, you can advocate for yourself and set boundaries.

5. Accept That Some Attorneys Won’t Appreciate You—And That’s Okay

Not every attorney will respect the work you do, but that doesn’t diminish your value. If an attorney complains about you when you were simply doing your job, don’t take it personally. As seen in the real-life example that inspired this article, sometimes mutual dislike is the best outcome—you won’t have to deal with them again!

Recovering After a Stressful Job

After a particularly grueling deposition or trial, it’s vital to decompress. Stress can build up quickly, and without proper recovery strategies, burnout becomes a real risk. Here’s how to reset:

1. Take Time Off If Needed

If a job completely drains you, don’t hesitate to step away from the record for a day or two if possible. Use the time to rest, recharge, and regain your mental clarity. Recognizing when you need a break is a sign of professionalism, not weakness.

2. Engage in Stress-Relieving Activities

Find activities that help you unwind. Some suggestions include:

  • Exercise: Go for a walk, hit the gym, or practice yoga.
  • Hobbies: Engage in something you enjoy, whether it’s reading, painting, or baking.
  • Socializing: Connect with friends, fellow court reporters, or supportive colleagues who understand the challenges of the job.

3. Practice Self-Care

Court reporting is a mentally demanding profession, so taking care of yourself is non-negotiable. Get enough sleep, stay hydrated, and nourish your body with healthy food. If you find yourself feeling overwhelmed often, consider mindfulness techniques such as meditation or deep breathing exercises.

4. Connect with Other Court Reporters

One of the best ways to recover from a stressful experience is to talk about it with those who understand. Online forums, local meet-ups, and social media groups can provide a space for venting, advice, and camaraderie. The court reporting community is a strong one, and you’re never alone in your struggles. Facebook vents groups are aplenty: Court Reporters Vent Uncensored, court reporters vent here, court reporters who like spice in their vent, et cetera.

5. Reaffirm Your Purpose

On tough days, it’s important to remember why you chose this profession. Court reporting is an essential role in the legal system. You provide an unbiased, accurate account of proceedings, ensuring justice and fairness. Even when it feels thankless, your work matters.

Final Thoughts

Difficult attorneys, chaotic depositions, and high-pressure situations are all part of the job, but they don’t have to break you. By setting firm boundaries, maintaining professionalism, and prioritizing self-care, you can navigate even the toughest days with confidence. And remember—if an attorney doesn’t appreciate you for doing your job correctly, that’s their problem, not yours.

If you ever find yourself struggling, take comfort in knowing that you’re not alone. We all have war stories from the field, and we all bounce back stronger.

So, to those who have had “one of those jobs”—take a deep breath, enjoy your well-earned time off, and know that you’re doing great work.

Now, go ahead—vent, commiserate, and then let it go. Tomorrow is a new day, and you’ve got this!

The Pomodoro Technique for Court Reporters that Boosts Productivity and Reduces Fatigue

Court reporting is a demanding profession that requires intense focus, fast typing speeds, and the ability to accurately transcribe complex legal proceedings. However, the long hours of continuous work can lead to mental fatigue, burnout, and decreased accuracy. Enter the Pomodoro Technique—a time management method that helps court reporters stay sharp, maintain productivity, and reduce fatigue while transcribing crucial legal proceedings.

What is the Pomodoro Technique?

Developed in the late 1980s by Francesco Cirillo, the Pomodoro Technique is a simple yet effective time management system designed to improve focus and efficiency. It works by breaking work into 25-minute intervals called “Pomodoros,” followed by short breaks of 5 minutes. After completing four Pomodoros, a longer break of 15 to 30 minutes is taken to recharge before resuming work.

The method is named after the Italian word for “tomato,” inspired by Cirillo’s use of a tomato-shaped kitchen timer to track his study sessions. The technique is now widely used across various industries, including legal transcription, journalism, and administrative work, due to its effectiveness in maintaining concentration and productivity.

Why the Pomodoro Technique Works for Court Reporters

Court reporting is both mentally and physically demanding. The need for continuous attention to dialogue, legal jargon, and fast-paced conversations makes it easy to become overwhelmed. The Pomodoro Technique offers a structured approach that allows court reporters to maintain efficiency while preventing burnout. Here’s why it works:

  1. Improves Focus – By working in dedicated 25-minute sessions, court reporters can stay engaged without distraction. Knowing that a break is coming up helps maintain concentration.
  2. Reduces Mental Fatigue – Long hours of uninterrupted transcription can be exhausting. Short, scheduled breaks allow the brain to reset, reducing errors caused by mental exhaustion.
  3. Enhances Accuracy – Taking regular breaks helps improve attention to detail, minimizing mistakes in transcriptions and ensuring high-quality reports.
  4. Prevents Repetitive Strain Injuries (RSIs) – Frequent breaks give court reporters the chance to stretch, adjust posture, and reduce strain on the hands, wrists, and eyes.
  5. Boosts Motivation – Completing Pomodoro cycles provides a sense of accomplishment, making long transcription sessions feel more manageable and rewarding.

How to Implement the Pomodoro Technique in Court Reporting

Integrating the Pomodoro Technique into a court reporter’s workflow is simple and requires minimal setup. Here’s a step-by-step guide to getting started:

  1. Choose Your Task – Select a specific transcription task, such as transcribing a deposition, proofreading a transcript, or editing legal documents.
  2. Set a Timer for 25 Minutes – Use a physical timer, a smartphone app, or an online Pomodoro timer to track your session.
  3. Work Until the Timer Rings – Stay focused and avoid distractions during the 25-minute session. If an unrelated thought arises, jot it down and return to work.
  4. Take a 5-Minute Break – Step away from your workstation, stretch, hydrate, or relax before the next Pomodoro begins.
  5. Repeat the Cycle – After completing four Pomodoros, take a longer break of 15–30 minutes to recharge before continuing.

Customizing the Pomodoro Technique for Court Reporters

While the traditional Pomodoro Technique follows a strict 25-minute work session, court reporters can adapt the system to better fit their needs:

  • Adjust Work Session Lengths – Some court reporters may find that 30 or 40-minute sessions work better, especially for reviewing lengthy transcripts.
  • Modify Break Durations – If a 5-minute break feels too short, consider extending it to 7–10 minutes, particularly if you need time to rest your hands or eyes.
  • Use a Digital Timer or App – Many court reporters prefer using apps like Focus Booster, Pomodone, or TomatoTimer to track their Pomodoros.
  • Combine with Ergonomic Breaks – Use break times to stretch, adjust your chair, or practice hand and wrist exercises to prevent strain.
  • Batch Similar Tasks – Grouping similar tasks into Pomodoro sessions, such as editing multiple transcripts in one block, can enhance workflow efficiency.

Overcoming Common Challenges with the Pomodoro Technique

While the Pomodoro Technique is highly effective, court reporters may face certain challenges when implementing it. Here’s how to overcome them:

  1. Interruption from Proceedings – Court reporters working in real-time environments may find it difficult to take scheduled breaks. In such cases, applying Pomodoros during transcript review or editing sessions can still be beneficial.
  2. Resistance to Taking Breaks – Some professionals feel pressured to push through fatigue without stopping. However, breaks are essential for sustaining high-quality work over long hours.
  3. Disruptions from Emails or Calls – To maintain focus, turn off notifications or set specific times outside of Pomodoro sessions to check emails and return calls.
  4. Adapting to Different Workflows – Legal professionals may work on unpredictable schedules. Flexibility is key—adjusting the number of Pomodoros per session can help accommodate varying workloads.

Tools and Resources to Enhance the Pomodoro Experience

Court reporters can leverage various tools to implement the Pomodoro Technique effectively. Here are some helpful options:

  • Pomodoro Timers – Apps like Focus Keeper, Be Focused, and Marinara Timer can help track work intervals.
  • Task Management Tools – Using platforms like Todoist, Trello, or Asana can help court reporters organize tasks and integrate them into Pomodoro sessions.
  • Ergonomic Accessories – Investing in wrist rests, standing desks, and blue-light-blocking glasses can enhance comfort during work sessions.
  • Transcription Software – Court reporters using digital transcription tools like Case CATalyst, Eclipse, or DigitalCAT can pair them with Pomodoro tracking for increased efficiency.

The Long-Term Benefits of Using the Pomodoro Technique

Consistently using the Pomodoro Technique can lead to numerous long-term benefits for court reporters, including:

  • Sustained Productivity – Breaking work into manageable segments prevents burnout, allowing court reporters to maintain peak performance.
  • Improved Work-Life Balance – By incorporating structured breaks, professionals can avoid overworking and maintain a healthier balance between work and personal life.
  • Enhanced Mental Clarity – Frequent breaks and structured sessions improve cognitive function, ensuring high levels of accuracy in legal transcriptions.
  • Increased Job Satisfaction – Feeling in control of workloads and reducing stress through better time management leads to greater job satisfaction and longevity in the profession.

Final Thoughts

The Pomodoro Technique is a game-changer for court reporters looking to boost productivity, improve accuracy, and reduce work-related fatigue. By structuring work into focused intervals with regular breaks, court reporters can sustain high-quality transcription, prevent burnout, and maintain long-term career satisfaction. Whether transcribing depositions, editing legal documents, or reviewing transcripts, incorporating Pomodoro sessions into daily workflows can make a significant difference in efficiency and well-being. Try it today and experience the benefits of a more structured and sustainable approach to court reporting!

Embracing Your Path to Success in Court Reporting

Dolly Parton, a living legend of authenticity and purpose, once said, “Find out who you are and do it on purpose.” This message is especially powerful for court reporters, whose success depends on precision, dedication, and continuous growth. In a field that requires unwavering attention to detail and an ever-evolving skill set, embracing one’s unique strengths and passions can drive professional success and fulfillment.

Discovering Your Professional Identity

Understanding who you are as a court reporter is the foundation for professional growth. Each stenographer brings a unique approach, skillset, and perspective to the profession. Some thrive in high-pressure environments such as live trials, while others prefer the meticulousness of transcript production.

To harness your potential, take time for self-reflection:

  • Identify Your Strengths: Are you exceptionally fast with your steno machine? Do you have an innate ability to decipher difficult accents or complex technical testimony?
  • Pinpoint Areas for Growth: What challenges do you face? Do you struggle with time management, new technology, or specific legal terminology?
  • Align Your Work with Your Passion: Court reporting offers diverse opportunities, from freelance depositions to official court positions and captioning services. Understanding your personal interests will help you pursue the right path with greater purpose and enthusiasm.

Setting Clear Objectives for Success

Once you have a sense of your professional identity, setting concrete goals is the next step. Success in court reporting doesn’t happen by chance; it requires deliberate planning and effort. Define your objectives with these strategies:

  • Set SMART Goals: Ensure your goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. For instance, “Increase my realtime accuracy rate by 5% within six months.”
  • Break Down Large Goals into Smaller Steps: If you want to become a Certified Realtime Reporter (CRR), start by improving your speed, then tackle accuracy, and finally focus on certification-specific training.
  • Regularly Reassess and Adjust Your Goals: The legal field evolves, and so should your professional aspirations. Make it a habit to review and refine your objectives.

Investing in Training and Technology

The court reporting landscape is changing rapidly. Staying ahead means embracing advancements in CAT technology and continuous learning. Investing in yourself ensures longevity and competitiveness in the field.

Continuing Education

  • Seek Advanced Certifications: Beyond the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) credential, consider earning higher distinctions such as the Certified Realtime Reporter (CRR) or Registered Diplomate Reporter (RDR).
  • Attend Industry Conferences and Webinars: Networking with peers and learning from industry leaders can provide fresh insights and keep you updated on best practices.
  • Participate in Skill Enhancement Workshops: Whether it’s refining your punctuation skills or learning new software, continuous education enhances your expertise.

Leveraging New Technologies

  • Upgrade Your Equipment: Investing in a high-quality writer, noise-canceling headphones and high-gain microphones, and updated CAT software can significantly improve your efficiency.
  • Embrace Realtime Reporting: With increased demand for realtime services, refining your accuracy and output speed can open new career opportunities.
  • Utilize Technology Tools Wisely: Leverage industry-specific tools to enhance efficiency and career opportunities. Platforms like CoverCrow and eCourtReporters connect court reporters with job opportunities, streamlining the process of finding assignments. Meanwhile, Stenovate helps organize transcripts, manage scopists and proofreaders, and improve workflow. By integrating these resources into your repertoire, you can optimize productivity, stay organized, and focus on delivering high-quality transcripts with greater ease.

Turning Challenges into Opportunities

Every court reporter encounters obstacles, from difficult attorneys to grueling schedules. However, viewing these challenges as opportunities for growth can make all the difference.

  • Difficult Testimony? Treat it as a learning experience to sharpen your listening skills and develop strategies for handling complex speech patterns.
  • Demanding Deadlines? Use time management techniques such as the Pomodoro Technique to enhance productivity without burnout.
  • Technology Glitches? Take proactive steps to familiarize yourself with troubleshooting techniques, ensuring that setbacks don’t disrupt your workflow.

Lifting Others Through Mentorship and Collaboration

A truly successful court reporter doesn’t just elevate themselves; they lift others along the way. Mentorship and collaboration play a critical role in strengthening the profession.

  • Mentor Students and New Reporters: Share your knowledge with aspiring stenographers, providing guidance on skill-building, career decisions, and industry expectations.
  • Engage with Professional Associations: Join organizations like the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) to advocate for industry growth and professional development. Join your state association to engage with others in your state.
  • Support Your Colleagues: Be open to exchanging tips, resources, and encouragement. A strong professional network fosters success for all.

Shaping a Career with Purpose and Passion

When court reporters embrace their identity and work with intentionality, they cultivate careers that are both fulfilling and impactful. By continuously learning, adapting, and supporting others, they not only enhance their own success but also contribute to the strength of the profession as a whole.

Ultimately, “doing it on purpose” means setting high standards for yourself, actively pursuing growth, and inspiring those around you. Whether you’re just beginning your career or are a seasoned reporter, committing to your craft with passion and focus ensures a lasting and meaningful impact in the field of court reporting.

Stenos Fight for Justice, Not Just Survival

The Fight for the Future of Court Reporting: Why Stenographers Will Prevail Over Digital Interlopers

In the race between a lion and a deer, many times, the deer wins. The lion runs for food, but the deer runs for life. This analogy perfectly captures the battle between stenographers and the digital interlopers attempting to take over the court reporting industry. The companies pushing digital reporting are in it for profit, but stenographers are fighting for something far greater—accuracy, justice, and the very integrity of our legal system. When purpose is stronger than need, victory is inevitable.

The Rise of the Digital Threat

Over the last decade, companies promoting digital court reporting have aggressively pushed their technology into courtrooms, deposition rooms, and legal proceedings across the country. Their promise? A cheaper, faster, and seemingly more efficient way to capture the spoken word. Digital court reporting relies on audio recordings and artificial intelligence (AI) to transcribe proceedings, often with minimal human oversight.

At first glance, this might seem like a logical evolution, a natural transition in an era of automation. However, the motivations behind this push are clear—profit. These companies are not striving to improve the legal system; they are capitalizing on a lucrative market, prioritizing their bottom line over the quality of the record. They see food, not purpose.

The Purpose-Driven Fight of Stenographers

Stenographers, on the other hand, are driven by something far greater than financial gain. They are the guardians of the record, ensuring that every word spoken in a courtroom is accurately captured and preserved. They are not just typists; they are highly trained professionals with years of experience, capable of providing real-time transcription with near-perfect accuracy.

Unlike digital recording systems, which can misinterpret words due to accents, overlapping speech, or technical malfunctions, stenographers rely on their expertise to differentiate between similar-sounding words, detect nuances in speech, and clarify proceedings in real time. They bring a level of human judgment and critical thinking that technology simply cannot replicate.

For stenographers, this isn’t just a job—it’s a calling. Their work upholds the integrity of the legal system, ensuring that no one’s words are lost, misrepresented, or misinterpreted. A single error in a legal transcript can have catastrophic consequences, from wrongful convictions to unjust rulings. That’s why stenographers fight—not for financial gain, but to protect truth and justice.

The Shortcomings of Digital Court Reporting

The push toward digital court reporting is often justified by claims of efficiency and cost savings, but the reality tells a different story. Digital systems are fraught with risks and shortcomings, many of which are already causing disruptions in legal proceedings.

  1. Inaccuracy and Misinterpretation – AI and digital recording systems struggle with overlapping speech, low-quality audio, background noise, and varying accents. A stenographer can clarify these in real time; a machine cannot.
  2. Technical Failures – Courtrooms and deposition rooms are not immune to power outages, software glitches, or recording malfunctions. A stenographer’s skills, however, are not dependent on technology alone.
  3. Security and Privacy Risks – Digital recordings are vulnerable to hacking, data breaches, and manipulation. Stenographic transcripts, on the other hand, provide a secure, tangible record that cannot be altered without detection.
  4. Lack of Immediate Readbacks – In the heat of a legal battle, attorneys often request immediate readbacks of testimony. Digital systems lack the capability to quickly provide accurate, on-the-spot playback the way stenographers can.
  5. Dependence on Transcription Services – Many digital court recordings still require human transcriptionists, leading to delays and added costs. If digital reporting truly provided a seamless solution, why does it still require human intervention?

The Race to Preserve the Profession

Just as the deer must outrun the lion to survive, stenographers must continue their relentless pursuit of excellence to protect their profession and the legal system. The battle is not just about employment; it is about preserving the accuracy and reliability of legal records.

The legal industry is beginning to recognize these dangers. Many attorneys, judges, and legal professionals are advocating for stenographers, acknowledging that digital alternatives simply do not measure up. Several court systems have already rejected digital reporting due to the high rate of errors and inconsistencies.

Moreover, the demand for highly skilled stenographers remains high. While some have argued that the stenography profession is declining, the reality is that there is a shortage of qualified professionals. Courts, law firms, and legal agencies are actively seeking skilled stenographers who can deliver the precision that digital systems lack.

Strength in Purpose

Ultimately, purpose will always triumph over profit-driven motivations. Digital reporting companies may continue to push their technology, but they will never match the dedication and expertise of a trained stenographer.

This is not just about technological advancement—it’s about ensuring justice. Just as a deer runs for its life, stenographers are fighting for the very survival of an accurate and fair legal system. No amount of financial incentive can match the passion and commitment of professionals who understand the gravity of their work.

The battle is far from over, but the outcome is clear. Stenographers are not just court reporters; they are protectors of truth. And in a race between need and purpose, purpose will always prevail.

Appeals and Court Reporters The Frustrations and Need for Change

Court reporting is a demanding profession that requires precision, organization, and professionalism. However, when it comes to handling appeals, the process often devolves into a frustrating, drawn-out ordeal—one that has reporters begging and pleading with fellow professionals just to get the necessary files. The inefficiencies, lack of accountability, and failure of some reporters to adhere to deadlines create unnecessary burdens for their colleagues and tarnish the profession’s reputation.

The Ongoing Struggle

One of the most maddening aspects of handling appeals is the unending chase for transcripts from fellow reporters. Instead of a seamless system where each reporter is responsible for uploading their own files by a designated deadline, the current method relies heavily on a lead reporter having to corral their colleagues. This often means repeatedly emailing, calling, and essentially babysitting another professional just to retrieve the documents they are responsible for.

Why should one reporter have to hound another for their work? It is baffling that adult professionals—who already handle complex legal proceedings, fast-talking attorneys, and chaotic jury selections—struggle with a straightforward requirement to submit your transcript in a timely manner. Yet, here we are, month after month, caught in an endless loop of unresponsiveness, misplaced files, and excuses.

The Communication Breakdown

One of the biggest contributors to this problem is the sheer lack of communication. It’s astonishing that in a profession where accuracy and timeliness are paramount, some reporters fail to check their emails daily. When reporters do not respond to messages regarding their role in an appeal, it forces others to spend time tracking them down—time that could be spent on actual work.

Even worse, when reporters finally do respond, it is often with a revelation that they have thousands of pages of untranscribed material, forcing additional funding requests and further delaying the process. This irresponsibility not only creates more work for the lead reporter but also negatively impacts the entire appeal process.

The Impact of Non-Responsiveness

The consequences of this lack of accountability are severe. Late and non-responsive reporters cause

  • Delays in the appeals process which can impact case outcomes
  • Extra administrative work including tracking down missing transcripts and requesting additional funds
  • A tarnished reputation for court reporters as a profession making it harder for all of us to demand respect and proper compensation

The current system’s inefficiencies make it harder for those who do their jobs responsibly to maintain professionalism. It’s unfair that diligent reporters have to pick up the slack for those who refuse to adhere to deadlines and communication norms.

A Simple Solution for Mandatory Individual Uploads

There is an easy way to fix this problem. Require every reporter to upload their own transcripts to a centralized platform like YesLaw by a designated deadline. If they fail to do so, the consequences should be on them—not on their colleagues who are doing their jobs correctly.

Each reporter already formats their transcript, specifies their payment method, and submits it to the lead. Why not eliminate the middleman and send it directly to the designated appeals platform. This shift would eliminate the need for constant follow-ups, reduce the risk of misplaced files, and ensure that deadlines are met without the need for babysitting.

The Need for Systemic Change

The system for handling appeals in Los Angeles County is outdated and inefficient. There needs to be a formalized process that:

  • Assigns clear individual responsibility for transcript submission
  • Enforces deadlines with consequences for non-compliance
  • Eliminates unnecessary layers of communication by allowing reporters to upload their work directly
  • Creates a standard protocol for addressing cases where a reporter is unresponsive or unable to fulfill their obligations

By implementing these changes, we can make the appeals process more streamlined, professional, and fair for everyone involved.

A Call for Professionalism

It’s time for all court reporters to take accountability. If you don’t know how to handle an appeal, ask for help. If you receive an email about an appeal you were assigned to, respond—even if it’s just to confirm your involvement. Ignoring messages, missing deadlines, and failing to communicate is not only unprofessional, but also disrespectful to your colleagues.

The reality is the appeals process is not harder than any other aspect of court reporting. It is certainly not more difficult than handling a fast-talking witness, a mumbling judge, or an unpredictable jury selection. There is no reason why appeals should be an enigma for some reporters.

A Plea for Reform

To those in charge of court reporting processes in Los Angeles County, please consider implementing a more efficient system. The current structure forces responsible reporters to take on extra work to compensate for the shortcomings of their colleagues. By requiring each reporter to submit their own transcripts independently, and enforcing deadlines, we can alleviate unnecessary stress and make the appeals process smoother for everyone.

For all reporters, let’s do better. Let’s respond to emails, meet deadlines, and uphold the professionalism that our profession demands. The reputation of court reporters depends on it.

The Quoted Material Conundrum

The case involved 20 plaintiffs who alleged that their medical injuries and adverse health conditions resulted from exposure to hazardous and/or toxic substances caused by the eight named defendants. The defense counsel, though an exceptional toxic tort attorney, lacked experience in medical malpractice, leading to some amusing mispronunciations of medical terms. The jury struggled to endure the monotonous reading of the stipulation, with one juror even raising his hand to request a break, commenting on the dryness of the proceedings. If the jury found it challenging, the court reporter’s task was even more daunting—attempting to follow along with the error-ridden document displayed on the monitor while simultaneously correcting punctuation and spelling in real-time.

During a break, I attempted to get counsel to stipulate that I wouldn’t have to report the 22-page stipulation document he was reading from, but, unfortunately, since it was a factual document, it had to be part of the official record. So, I did what I could—I asked the attorney to slow down. I explained that I was writing in all the necessary punctuation on my machine, which required significantly more strokes than just transcribing his spoken words. I didn’t mention it, but I was also hoping to prevent my brand-new scopist from quitting. I should have asked the attorney to stop speaking punctuation altogether—something I find particularly frustrating—but he was already dismissive about my request. He even brought up to the judge the fact that I had requested that he slow down, as if reading the stipulation faster would somehow alleviate the jury’s suffering. However, my request ensured that the daily transcript could still be delivered on time. Attorneys often underestimate how much extra work they create for court reporters.

When attorneys misread documents, I make sure not to quote the incorrect portions. Instead, I end the quote before the misread word and resume quoting afterward to ensure accuracy. If an attorney mispronounces a term and is corrected, I transcribe the incorrect pronunciation with a [sic] notation to clarify why the correction was made. Similarly, if an attorney interrupts themselves mid-word, I use a dash to indicate the break before writing the full term correctly. Numbers are handled the same way—for example, “In 2020- — 2024″—to reflect what was intended, rather than what was partially spoken. If the attorney never corrects the misspoken word, then you would end the quote before the word (seeking) and start it after that word.  So for example:  “K. Onset 04-2024:”  Seeking “acupuncturist weekly.”  

And the “paren” is not in the quoted material, so we have to remove the quotes around all his speaking punctuations. That’s why I hate speaking punctuations.  

Here’s another one.  When he totally mispronounces something and someone corrects him, I must put in the word the way he pronounced it and [sic] so it’s clear why he was being corrected.

Here’s another one.  If he stops short of saying the whole word, I dash it.  So here, the full word was LACUSC, but he only said the LAC and interrupted, so it’s LAC- — and then the full word.  Same with numbers.  For example, “In 2020- — 2024.”  If they meant to say 2024, but they interrupted, to leave it as 2020 wouldn’t be accurate because they meant 2024, but didn’t get to the -4, but did say 20.  

Everything he reads is in quotes, so if he quotes something within those quotes, use the single quote, not the double quote:

Here’s another one where he said “past,” but the transcript said “last” – so we don’t quote the “Past” in this section of quoted material:

If he says a word then pauses and starts over saying the word again, unquote and then quote again:

His misrepresentations and multiple attempts at pronouncing the word:

Proper punctuation is crucial, especially within quoted material. If something is quoted within a larger quotation, I use single quotes instead of double. If an attorney starts a word, pauses, and then repeats it, I close and reopen the quotation marks accordingly. Mispronunciations that resemble common variations (like “potato/potatoe”) are transcribed correctly, but if multiple incorrect attempts are made and a correction follows, I include the mispronunciations to provide clarity.

Like this one, the document had the opening paren in the transcript, but the attorney didn’t say the closing paren.  That’s okay to leave off the closing paren in our transcript.  If he had not said the opening “paren,” then I would have been able to put BOTH () symbols, but he said one and not the other.  He should say both or don’t say it at all.  But don’t mix/match with one verbal punctuation and then the punctuation.  Same with if he had said “quote” without the “unquote.”  It woud be:  Ms. Jones said, quote, don’t do that.  And then the kids stopped climbing the fence. But you wouldn’t do it this way, for example:  Ms. Jones said, quote, don’t do that.  And then the kids stopped climbing the fence.”

The written document we followed was riddled with punctuation errors, but our job as court reporters is not to transcribe it verbatim from the document. we must ensure the record is punctuated correctly, regardless of the errors in the original. For instance, if the transcript incorrectly included a hyphen, I omitted it. If the attorney verbally said “paren,” but only one bracket, I reflected that accurately, rather than forcing symmetry. Similarly, if they said “quote,” but never “unquote,” I followed the spoken words, rather than the erroneous document formatting.

Ultimately, this trial was not for an amateur reporter—three had already dropped out before me. However, the complexity and challenges are why I’m compensated well for my expertise. Despite the frustrating moments, the satisfaction of producing a meticulous and accurate record makes it all worthwhile.

Understanding the Use of Ellipses in Legal Transcripts and When They Are Appropriate

Introduction

Ellipses, represented by three spaced periods (“…”), are commonly used in legal writing and transcripts to indicate omitted text. While ellipses can be useful for brevity and clarity, they must be applied carefully in legal contexts, particularly in court filings and transcripts, to ensure that their use does not misrepresent the original meaning of the cited text. Improper use of ellipses can lead to accusations of misleading citation practices, mischaracterization of legal precedent, or even judicial reprimands.

In legal discourse, judges, attorneys, and clerks rely heavily on the accuracy and integrity of quoted material. Any omission, whether intentional or not, can impact the interpretation of a legal argument or ruling. This article examines the appropriate use of ellipses in legal transcripts and documents, explores potential pitfalls, and provides guidelines to ensure compliance with ethical and professional standards.

The Role of Ellipses in Legal Writing

Ellipses are primarily used in legal writing for two purposes:

  1. Conciseness – Legal documents often cite lengthy judicial opinions, statutes, or testimonies. Ellipses allow an attorney or judge to focus on the most relevant portions of the text without unnecessary verbiage.
  2. Clarification – Sometimes, portions of text may be omitted to prevent confusion or redundancy, provided that the omission does not alter the meaning of the quoted material.

While ellipses can be a useful tool for streamlining text, they should never be used in a way that changes the fundamental intent of the original language. Courts have been known to scrutinize the use of ellipses, especially when their application appears to distort the meaning of legal authorities.

Judicial Concerns Regarding Ellipses

Judges are particularly sensitive to the use of ellipses in legal briefs and citations. As one judge pointed out in response to a defense brief:

“The one point I would say, as to defense, you have ELLIPSES in your citation, which suggests that you’re leaving out portions of what the court ruled. And at least the case you’re relying upon. And also I certainly wouldn’t be giving a jury — jury instructions that — that are referring to citations that have ELLIPSES or have quotes in them, unless you’re actually presenting the text of a statute. So I think that’s one of the problems, up front, that needs to be modified.”

This statement highlights the primary concern with using ellipses: the potential for misleading the court, opposing counsel, or even a jury. When ellipses are used in case citations, they may give the appearance that key portions of a ruling are being withheld, whether intentionally or not. If an attorney selectively removes portions of a case’s holding, they may be accused of omitting language unfavorable to their argument, thereby misleading the court.

Appropriate Use of Ellipses in Legal Transcripts

Legal transcripts, which include court proceedings, depositions, and witness testimonies, should maintain accuracy and fidelity to spoken words. The use of ellipses in transcripts is generally discouraged unless necessary for clarity or brevity. Below are situations where ellipses may be appropriately used:

  1. Omitting Redundant or Irrelevant Speech – In transcriptions of oral testimony, speakers often use fillers (e.g., “uh,” “you know,” “like”) or repeat themselves. In some cases, ellipses can be used to omit redundant content to improve readability while preserving the intent of the statement.
  2. Removing Superfluous Portions of a Quote – When citing previous testimony in legal arguments, attorneys may use ellipses to remove tangential statements that do not alter the meaning of the testimony.
  3. Streamlining Complex Citations – In legal briefs, attorneys sometimes quote long statutory provisions or judicial opinions. If the omitted text does not change the legal effect of the quoted passage, ellipses may be used for conciseness.

When NOT to Use Ellipses in Legal Transcripts

There are also several scenarios where the use of ellipses is inappropriate or even unethical:

  1. Altering the Meaning of a Quotation – If an attorney removes text that significantly changes the legal interpretation of a precedent, it could be considered deceptive and potentially subject to sanctions.
  2. Misleading the Court – Courts rely on the full context of cited cases and statutes. If an attorney uses ellipses to remove unfavorable language, they risk misleading the court and damaging their credibility.
  3. In Jury Instructions – As the judge in the earlier quote indicated, jury instructions should not contain citations with ellipses, unless they are directly quoting a statute. Jurors must be given full and accurate legal language to ensure they reach a fair and informed verdict.
  4. In Official Court Transcripts – Court transcripts are intended to be a verbatim record of proceedings. Unless specifically noted, omitting portions of dialogue with ellipses can compromise the accuracy and integrity of the record.

Best Practices for Using Ellipses in Legal Documents

Given the potential risks associated with ellipses, legal professionals should adhere to the following best practices:

  1. Always Provide Full Context – Before using an ellipsis, consider whether the omitted portion is necessary for a fair and accurate understanding of the quoted material.
  2. Avoid Omissions That Alter Meaning – Ensure that removing text does not change the legal interpretation of the source.
  3. Use Parentheticals for Clarification – If text is omitted for brevity, use explanatory parentheticals (e.g., “(emphasis added)”) to indicate any modifications.
  4. Check Court Rules and Citation Guidelines – Different courts and jurisdictions may have specific rules regarding citation practices. Always verify citation rules in the applicable jurisdiction.
  5. Err on the Side of Full Disclosure – When in doubt, include more rather than less of the cited text to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Conclusion

The use of ellipses in legal transcripts and court documents requires careful consideration. While ellipses can aid in conciseness, they must never be used in a way that alters meaning, misrepresents legal precedent, or misleads the court. Judges are particularly wary of ellipses in case citations and jury instructions, emphasizing the need for transparency in legal writing.

Attorneys and legal professionals must exercise caution and ethical diligence when employing ellipses to ensure they maintain the integrity of their arguments and uphold the standards of the legal profession. By following best practices and ensuring full context in quotations, legal practitioners can avoid potential pitfalls and maintain credibility before the court.

Who’s to Blame for the Decline of the Steno Profession? The Boys or the Girls?

The steno profession—once a prestigious and integral part of the legal and court reporting industries—has seen a significant decline in recent years. This decline has been fueled by multiple forces, ranging from changes in economic structures to the behaviors and decisions of individuals within the industry. Many believed that the profession would evolve as technology advanced. However, instead of evolving, the profession has been eroded in ways that few saw coming. But who is to blame for this? The reality is that the responsibility for the decline of the steno profession is not easily attributed to any one group alone. While it’s clear that men—specifically the owners of agencies, lawyers, and insurance companies—played a substantial role in undermining the profession’s viability, the failure of female stenographers to effectively advocate for their own profession also shares a large part of the blame.

The Role of Agency Owners, Lawyers, and Insurance Companies

Historically, the steno profession has been heavily male-dominated at the highest levels. Agency owners—often men—made decisions that prioritized profitability over the well-being of their employees. The introduction of large corporations buying out smaller agencies exacerbated this trend, as corporate interests became the driving force behind decisions, often leading to an increasing focus on quantity over quality. In a race to maximize profits, these owners pushed down rates, focusing on cutting costs, rather than retaining quality employees. The most telling example of this is how agency owners were often quick to lower rates in an attempt to meet the demands of clients—who, in many cases, were interested primarily in cutting costs. Instead of considering the impact on the profession as a whole, the focus was placed on the immediate bottom line.

Lawyers, too, contributed to the erosion of the profession. The legal industry has long been one of the largest employers of court reporters and stenographers. However, many lawyers—who were also predominantly men—used their bargaining power to push stenographers into accepting lower compensation for the same or more work. Their power came from their control over the demand for court reporters, which gave them leverage to negotiate rates. This leverage often led to a devaluation of the professional services that stenographers provided. As rates were driven lower and lower, the profession’s stature and respectability began to decline, which, in turn, further diminished the industry’s ability to sustain itself.

The role of insurance companies in this decline also cannot be overlooked. As gatekeepers of the reimbursement rates for court reporting services, insurance companies—largely controlled by men—set the rates at levels that forced stenographers into a race to the bottom. These companies often sought to reduce the cost of services without regard for the consequences on the quality of the work. As rates were cut, the pressure on individual stenographers grew, as they were expected to maintain the same level of service while accepting less and less pay. The inability of stenographers to push back against these practices allowed the profession to spiral further into a decline.

However, the blame for the erosion of the steno profession is not limited to the men at the top of the industry. While these men were certainly influential in the transformation of the profession, the failure of the profession’s workforce—predominantly women—played an equally important role in the profession’s downfall.

The Failure of Stenographers to Advocate for Their Profession

While agency owners, lawyers, and insurance companies played a significant role in the decline of the steno profession, the female stenographers—who represented the backbone of the industry—must also share some of the blame. The history of the steno profession is intertwined with the history of women in the workplace, as the profession has historically been dominated by women. However, women in this field have often faced significant challenges in advancing their position within the industry. The steno profession has been characterized by a lack of representation in leadership roles, with very few women rising to positions of power or influence. This lack of leadership has been compounded by a culture that discouraged women from advocating for themselves and their profession.

As the steno profession began to experience its decline, many women within the industry failed to effectively advocate for better wages, working conditions, and the preservation of the profession’s value. Instead of uniting and organizing to push for reforms, many women opted to remain passive or even worked against each other. A culture of passive-aggressiveness, gossip, and reputation-destroying behavior became prevalent in the industry. Stenographers who dared to speak out about the profession’s deteriorating state often found themselves ostracized and accused of causing unnecessary conflict. This hostile culture stifled open dialogue about the issues facing the profession and created an environment where it was difficult to advocate for change.

The failure to advocate for change can also be attributed to the widespread lack of solidarity among stenographers. Instead of coming together to demand fair compensation and a higher standard of work, many stenographers accepted the status quo and the deteriorating conditions that came with it. This passivity allowed the forces—such as the decisions of agency owners, lawyers, and insurance companies—that were eroding the profession’s value to continue unchecked.

A Gendered Divide – Men at the Top, Women at the Bottom

The tension between the actions of men in leadership positions and women within the profession reflects broader gender dynamics in the workplace. Men in positions of power—such as agency owners, lawyers, and insurance executives—made decisions that prioritized their own interests, often at the expense of the professionals who did the work. Meanwhile, the women in the profession, historically underrepresented in leadership and decision-making roles, were left to bear the brunt of these decisions.

However, the dynamics within the steno profession were not merely about the actions of men. A deeper, more complex interaction between gender roles and professional advocacy played a significant role. While men at the top were using their power to drive down rates and devalue the work, women in the field often failed to organize and advocate for change. In many cases, women internalized these decisions, accepting the diminishing returns, rather than fighting for better compensation, more respect, or professional standards that reflected their expertise.

Instead of banding together to address the deterioration of their profession, many women within the industry turned on one another. A lack of solidarity and even competition among colleagues undermined any efforts to unite in the face of a common threat. This inter-professional rivalry, which sometimes took the form of gossip, backbiting, and even bullying, weakened the ability of stenographers to advocate for themselves or for the future of their profession.

In some ways, this can be understood through the lens of a broader societal pattern in which women, particularly in historically female-dominated professions, have been socialized to suppress their voices and avoid conflict. In a field where many women were expected to conform to passive roles, pushing for change was often met with resistance, both from the industry and from within their own ranks.

The Consequences of Division and Passivity

Ultimately, the combination of external pressure from powerful men in leadership positions and the internal divisions among female stenographers created a perfect storm for the decline of the steno profession. The failure of female stenographers to come together, support one another, and actively defend their livelihoods allowed external forces—such as the decisions of agency owners, lawyers, and insurance companies—to erode the profession without significant opposition. The passivity within the profession further fueled its decline, as stenographers failed to take the necessary steps to secure the future of their field.

It is important to recognize that the decline of the steno profession was not inevitable. Had stenographers united and taken collective action to advocate for better wages, more supportive working conditions, and the preservation of the value of their work, the profession may have been able to adapt and thrive. Instead, the failure to act has left the profession on the brink of extinction.

A Call for Collective Action and Advocacy

Looking ahead, it is crucial for those who remain in the steno profession to learn from the mistakes of the past. The future of the profession hinges on the ability of stenographers to unite and advocate for their interests. Collective action, solidarity, and a commitment to preserving the integrity of the profession will be essential for ensuring its survival in the years to come.

In particular, advocating for fair compensation, standing up to the pressures from lawyers and insurance companies, and resisting the devaluation of their expertise will be vital. Stenographers must also focus on building a culture of support and solidarity, where they lift each other up, rather than tear each other down. Only through a collective, unified effort can stenographers hope to regain their place as indispensable professionals in the legal and business communities.

In conclusion, the decline of the steno profession cannot be attributed to any single group or cause. The forces of external pressure, internal division, and a lack of solidarity between gendered groups have all played a role in bringing about the profession’s downfall. However, by reflecting on the mistakes of the past and committing to collective action, the steno profession may still have a chance to regain its former prestige and relevance in the modern world. The lessons learned from the decline of this once-proud profession must serve as a reminder that unity, advocacy, and adaptability are key to overcoming adversity and securing a prosperous future.

Building the Bridge to the Next Generation through Mentorship in Court Reporting

In every profession, leadership is the bridge between generations, ensuring that knowledge, skills, and values continue to flourish. Court reporting is no different. As seasoned professionals, court reporters hold the key to shaping the next generation, not just through instruction but through true mentorship.

A true leader isn’t just someone who walks ahead—they’re someone who lays themselves down so others can move forward. This philosophy is crucial in court reporting, where experience, precision, and ethics must be passed down to ensure the continued success of the profession.

The Role of Leadership in Mentorship

A leader’s struggles become another’s foundation. Every lesson learned, every hardship faced, and every challenge overcome creates a smoother path for the next generation of court reporters.

Mentorship in court reporting isn’t just about technical training; it’s about instilling confidence, resilience, and a commitment to excellence. Leaders in this field must be willing to invest time and effort into those who will follow, ensuring that they are prepared not only for the technical aspects of the job but also for the personal and professional challenges they may face.

Why Mentorship Matters in Court Reporting

Preserving the Profession’s Integrity – Court reporting is a cornerstone of the legal system, requiring accuracy, confidentiality, and professionalism. By mentoring new reporters, experienced professionals uphold these standards and ensure that the next generation carries them forward.

Bridging the Knowledge Gap – While formal education provides a foundation, real-world experience teaches nuances that can only be learned through practice. Seasoned court reporters can guide new professionals through real-case scenarios, ensuring they develop critical thinking skills and adaptability.

Providing Emotional and Professional Support – Court reporting can be a demanding career, filled with tight deadlines and high-pressure situations. Mentors help new reporters navigate these challenges, offering guidance on stress management, work-life balance, and career growth.

How Court Reporters Can Lead Like a Bridge

Pass on What You’ve Learned
Experience is only valuable when shared. Mentorship should go beyond just teaching technical skills—it should include career advice, ethical guidance, and practical tips for handling difficult situations in and out of the courtroom.

Embrace Responsibility Over Recognition
True mentorship is not about receiving accolades; it’s about ensuring the next generation succeeds. The best mentors invest in others without expecting anything in return.

Make Sacrifices That Create Opportunities
Great mentors go out of their way to create opportunities for their mentees, whether it’s recommending them for jobs, allowing them to shadow real cases, or advocating for their growth in professional circles.

Think Beyond Your Time
A leader’s impact should extend beyond their own career. By mentoring new court reporters, experienced professionals contribute to the longevity and advancement of the field. The goal should always be to leave the profession stronger than it was before.

Empower, Don’t Just Instruct
The best leaders equip others with the confidence and ability to succeed independently. Mentorship isn’t about control; it’s about empowering the next generation to be self-sufficient, competent, and forward-thinking professionals.

Practical Ways to Mentor the Next Generation

Offer Shadowing Opportunities – Let aspiring court reporters observe real-world proceedings to gain hands-on experience.

Host Training Sessions – Share insights on best practices, software proficiency, and industry changes.

Be Available for Questions – New professionals will have many questions; being a reliable resource fosters growth and confidence.

Encourage Professional Development – Guide mentees toward certifications, associations, and continuing education to expand their skills.

Provide Constructive Feedback – Honest, supportive feedback helps new court reporters refine their skills and improve continuously.

The Hard Truth About Leadership in Mentorship

Leadership isn’t about standing tall—it’s about kneeling down so others can step forward. True leadership in court reporting means recognizing that your legacy is measured by how well you prepare those who follow in your footsteps.

The world doesn’t need more leaders obsessed with power. It needs leaders willing to be the bridge.

The Challenge to Experienced Court Reporters

Who are you building a bridge for? Who will look back and say, “I got here because they lifted me up”?

If you are a seasoned court reporter, take the initiative to mentor. The next generation is watching—let’s lead them well.

Court Reporters Protecting America’s Legal Record

Throughout history, records have been erased, altered, or destroyed for political, personal, or ideological reasons. From the burning of the Library of Alexandria to the digital erasures of modern times, information is vulnerable when it is concentrated in too few hands. Recent efforts to delete government data—removing web pages on public health, censoring information on the January 6th insurrection, and expunging scientific findings—serve as a stark reminder of how fragile our recorded history can be. In the face of these threats, one profession stands as an unyielding protector of the truth, court reporters.

Court reporters are the unsung heroes of the American legal system, preserving verbatim transcripts of courtroom proceedings, depositions, and trials. Unlike centralized digital recording systems that are prone to cyberattacks, government censorship, or catastrophic failures, court reporters create decentralized, independent backups of the legal record. Each court reporter safeguards their transcripts, ensuring that America’s judicial history remains untouchable by those who would seek to alter or erase it. This decentralized network is an essential safeguard against a legal system vulnerable to manipulation, cyber threats, and even an Orwellian-style rewriting of history.

The Risk of Centralized Digital Recordkeeping

In an era where digital recordkeeping dominates, many courts are considering replacing stenographic court reporters with centralized electronic recording systems. Proponents argue that digital recording is cost-effective and efficient. However, such a shift introduces enormous risks. When records are stored in a single digital repository, they become susceptible to:

  1. Mass Deletion or Censorship If court proceedings are electronically recorded and stored in a centralized system, a single bad actor with administrative access could erase or manipulate legal records. Just as entire pages of government websites vanished without explanation, what’s to stop a future authority from altering legal transcripts to serve their own ends? A rogue administrator could simply “delete” a case, removing vital evidence from existence.
  2. Cybersecurity Threats Hackers have infiltrated even the most secure government and corporate databases. A single cyberattack could compromise an entire repository of legal records, leaving thousands—if not millions—of cases in legal limbo. Ransomware attacks, in which criminals lock databases and demand payment to restore access, are an increasing threat to centralized systems.
  3. Technological Failures Even without malicious intent, technology can fail. Servers crash, databases become corrupted, and software glitches can render data irretrievable. A decentralized system, where each court reporter maintains their own transcripts, ensures that no single point of failure can obliterate the record.

Court Reporters as the Best Defense Against Erasure

Court reporters serve as individual archivists, each maintaining a detailed and accurate transcript of proceedings. This decentralized approach ensures redundancy, making it nearly impossible for a single actor to erase the record of justice. The advantages of court reporters over centralized digital recording systems are clear:

  1. Independent Verification Every court reporter keeps an independent record, which can be cross-referenced with others to prevent fraudulent alterations. Unlike digital files that can be edited without detection, stenographic records provide a clear and accurate history that cannot be easily manipulated.
  2. Redundant Backups Court reporters store multiple backups of their transcripts, both in digital and hard-copy form. This ensures that even if an electronic copy is lost, a physical backup remains intact. The redundancy of court reporters’ records makes them highly resistant to systemic failure or sabotage.
  3. Tamper-Proof Transcripts Unlike digital recordings, which can be edited with a few keystrokes, stenographic records require expert knowledge and extensive effort to alter. The meticulous nature of court reporting creates an audit trail that protects against tampering.
  4. Immediate Accessibility Court reporters provide real-time transcripts during proceedings, ensuring immediate access to records. Digital systems often require post-processing, which introduces the risk of data loss or corruption before transcripts are finalized.

Lessons from History on the Dangers of Data Destruction

The wholesale deletion of government web pages during political transitions serves as a chilling reminder of how quickly and easily records can be erased. From scientific data to legal history, no record is safe when stored in a centralized system controlled by a few individuals. The “digital book burning” of recent years proves that a decentralized approach—where individual actors maintain and protect records—is the best defense against historical revisionism.

The courts must recognize the invaluable role court reporters play in safeguarding justice. If the legal system transitions entirely to centralized digital recording, what’s to stop history from being rewritten by those in power? What happens when a high-profile case mysteriously disappears from the record? Who ensures that justice is preserved, unaltered and accessible for future generations?

Ensuring the Integrity of Justice

Court reporters are more than stenographers; they are the frontline defenders of the American legal system’s integrity. Their decentralized recordkeeping ensures that no single entity can erase, alter, or manipulate the legal history of the nation. The dangers of centralizing all court records in digital systems are too great to ignore. In an age where information is increasingly vulnerable to deletion and distortion, the need for human guardians of justice has never been more critical.

If courts relinquish control of the record to an electronic system, they risk repeating the mistakes of history—allowing data to be erased, records to be manipulated, and justice to be rewritten. The safest, most reliable solution remains the decentralized, dedicated, and incorruptible system of court reporters. By entrusting the legal record to these skilled professionals, America ensures that justice is not just served, but permanently recorded for all time.

Save What You Love

Save What You Love: Revitalizing the Stenography Profession

In an era dominated by rapid technological advancements, many traditional professions face the threat of obsolescence. Stenography, the art of shorthand writing, is among those endangered. This profession, which has played a pivotal role in legal proceedings, journalism, and various forms of documentation, is now confronting challenges that jeopardize its existence. Drawing inspiration from the documentary The Wild: How Do You Save What You Love?, we explore the parallels between environmental conservation and the preservation of the stenography profession.

The Decline of Stenography

Stenography, once a cornerstone of accurate and swift transcription, has seen a decline due to several factors:

  1. Technological Advancement: The only technological advancement capable of preserving traditional stenography is being developed by Advantage Software. Their Eclipse CAT software with Boost is the only solution in the industry that integrates human expertise with automatic speech recognition (ASR). Unlike other CAT software, Eclipse runs an ASR engine in the background while keeping the stenographer in control, ensuring 100% accuracy even at speeds exceeding 400 words per minute—a superhuman feat. This hybrid approach far outperforms ASR-only systems and has the potential to standardize skill levels across the profession, eliminating the inconsistencies seen today. While many companies rush to replace stenographers with untrained labor, Eclipse has been refining this technology for over a decade, positioning stenographers at the forefront of innovation rather than pushing them aside.
  2. Educational Shortcomings: The decline of stenography is further exacerbated by a lack of accessible training programs. As educational institutions phase out stenography courses, fewer students are entering the profession, leading to a dwindling workforce. Without dedicated efforts to revitalize training programs and attract new talent, the industry risks losing the highly skilled professionals necessary to maintain accurate and reliable transcription.
  3. Perception Issues: A major challenge facing stenography is the widespread misconception that it is an outdated or replaceable skill. In reality, stenographers provide unparalleled accuracy and speed in legal and professional settings—far exceeding the capabilities of speech-to-text software. Raising awareness about the critical role of stenographers in ensuring precise records is essential to preserving the profession and securing its future.

Lessons from The Wild

The Wild documents the struggle to protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay and its wild salmon runs from the construction of a massive copper mine. The film emphasizes the importance of preserving what we hold dear, even when faced with overwhelming odds. This narrative offers valuable insights for the stenography profession:

  1. Recognizing Intrinsic Value: Just as the wild salmon are integral to the ecosystem and the cultural heritage of indigenous communities, stenography holds intrinsic value in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of official records.
  2. Community Engagement: The documentary showcases how community involvement is crucial in conservation efforts. Similarly, engaging the legal community, educational institutions, and the public can raise awareness about the importance of stenography.
  3. Adaptation and Advocacy: The fight to protect Bristol Bay involved adapting strategies and persistent advocacy. The stenography profession can benefit from modernizing its practices and advocating for its continued relevance.

Strategies for Preservation

To safeguard the future of stenography, a multifaceted approach is necessary:

  1. Modernizing the Profession: Integrating stenography with modern technology (such as Eclipse Boost) can enhance its efficiency. For instance, combining traditional shorthand skills with enhanced features can offer augmented, cleaner realtime, and deliver your most polished rough drafts yet that are both accurate and immediate.
  2. Educational Initiatives: Revitalizing stenography programs in educational institutions is crucial. Offering specialized courses, workshops, and certifications can attract a new generation to the profession.
  3. Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating the public and stakeholders about the importance of stenography in maintaining the integrity of legal and official records can shift perceptions and highlight its continued relevance.
  4. Advocacy and Policy Engagement: Working with policymakers to recognize the importance of stenography in legal settings can lead to supportive legislation and funding for training programs.

The Role of Community

The preservation of any profession relies heavily on the strength and unity of its community. Stenographers, educators, and advocates must come together to share knowledge, mentor newcomers, and promote the profession’s value. Creating networks and associations can provide support, resources, and a collective voice in advocacy efforts.

Conclusion

The challenges faced by the stenography profession mirror those depicted in The Wild. Both involve the potential loss of something valuable due to external pressures and changing times. However, as the documentary illustrates, with recognition, community effort, and adaptive strategies, it is possible to protect and revitalize what we cherish. By implementing these lessons, we can ensure that stenography continues to play its vital role in our society.

The Ethical Dilemma of “No Payment Until Settlement” in Court Reporting

Court reporting firms play a crucial role in the justice system by providing accurate, impartial records of legal proceedings. Their role is one of neutrality, ensuring that all parties in litigation have equal access to precise transcripts. However, a troubling trend has emerged in the industry—some court reporting firms are offering “no payment until settlement” options to their clients while simultaneously requiring immediate payment from the opposing side. This practice raises significant ethical, legal, and regulatory concerns, particularly in California, where the Court Reporters Board of California (CRB) has voiced apprehensions about compliance with state laws and ethical standards.

Understanding the Controversy

The “no payment until settlement” model allows a law firm’s client to delay paying for court reporting services until the case concludes. This arrangement benefits one side of the litigation while requiring the opposing party to pay upfront for the same services. The disparity in financial obligation raises serious concerns regarding fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings. Court reporting firms are expected to maintain strict neutrality, ensuring that their services do not advantage one party over another.

The CRB has taken a firm stance against such practices, indicating that outcome-based payment structures may violate legal and ethical provisions designed to uphold integrity in court reporting. By allowing one side to defer payments based on case outcomes, court reporting firms risk being perceived as biased in favor of their paying client, which could compromise the fairness of the judicial process.

Legal and Ethical Implications

Violations of Neutrality

Court reporters are officers of the court, and their primary duty is to provide an accurate and unbiased transcript of proceedings. By offering lenient payment terms to one party while imposing strict terms on another, court reporting firms create an uneven playing field. Such a financial arrangement could lead to allegations of favoritism, even if unintentional.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

When a court reporting firm offers deferred payment until settlement, its financial interests become tied to the outcome of the case. If a court reporter or firm stands to gain more or less depending on the case’s resolution, it undermines the principle of neutrality. Even the perception of a conflict of interest can damage the credibility of the legal system.

Regulatory Compliance Concerns

The CRB has made it clear that payment structures contingent on case outcomes may violate California laws governing court reporting ethics. Under California law, court reporters must adhere to strict professional standards, including:

  • Ensuring impartiality and fairness in all legal proceedings
  • Avoiding financial arrangements that create an appearance of bias
  • Complying with payment practices that do not unduly benefit one party over another

Firms engaging in outcome-based payment models risk regulatory scrutiny, potential fines, and disciplinary action, which could result in the suspension or revocation of their ability to operate in California.

Why This Matters

Erosion of Trust in Court Reporting

The legal profession relies on the integrity and impartiality of court reporters to ensure a fair and just legal process. If attorneys and litigants begin to question the neutrality of court reporters due to these questionable payment structures, trust in the profession could erode. Once trust is lost, it becomes difficult to restore, and the credibility of the entire court reporting industry may suffer.

Legal Repercussions for Court Reporting Firms

Court reporting firms engaging in this practice could face serious legal consequences. Attorneys or opposing parties who feel disadvantaged by such payment structures may file complaints with the CRB or pursue legal action against the firms involved. Additionally, courts may scrutinize transcripts produced by firms with a vested financial interest in case outcomes, potentially leading to challenges regarding the accuracy and reliability of those records.

Impact on Litigants and Legal Proceedings

Unethical payment structures can create an imbalance in legal proceedings. If one party benefits from delayed payment while the other must pay immediately, it places an unnecessary financial burden on one side. In cases involving smaller firms or individual litigants with limited financial resources, such disparities could affect access to quality court reporting services, further skewing the fairness of the legal process.

Industry Response and the Role of the CRB

The Court Reporters Board of California is actively monitoring these payment practices and has warned firms that outcome-based payment models may not comply with state regulations. The CRB has encouraged anyone with concerns about this issue to report potential violations to their enforcement division at 916-263-3660 or via email at CRBEnforcement@dca.ca.gov.

Professional organizations and bar associations have also taken note of this issue. Legal ethics committees may soon weigh in on whether attorneys who engage with court reporting firms using this payment structure are violating their own professional responsibilities. Court reporters and attorneys alike should be vigilant in ensuring that their business practices align with ethical guidelines and legal requirements.

What Court Reporting Firms Should Do

To maintain their professional integrity and avoid regulatory penalties, court reporting firms should take proactive steps to ensure their payment structures adhere to legal and ethical standards:

  1. Implement Uniform Payment Policies – Court reporting firms should adopt payment policies that apply equally to all parties involved in litigation, ensuring neutrality and fairness.
  2. Educate Clients on Ethical Practices – Firms should inform attorneys and clients about the importance of neutrality in court reporting and the potential risks associated with deferred payment models.
  3. Engage with the CRB for Guidance – Firms uncertain about the legality of their payment practices should seek clarification from the CRB to ensure compliance.
  4. Avoid Financial Entanglements with Case Outcomes – Court reporting firms must maintain a clear financial separation from the success or failure of any given case to preserve impartiality.

Conclusion

The practice of offering “no payment until settlement” to some clients while demanding immediate payment from others is a serious ethical and legal issue within the court reporting industry. The Court Reporters Board of California has expressed clear concerns about these practices, warning that they may violate state laws designed to uphold neutrality and fairness. Court reporting firms must prioritize professionalism, neutrality, and ethical compliance to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings.

Attorneys, litigants, and court reporting professionals should remain vigilant and report any questionable practices to the CRB to ensure that the court reporting industry continues to function as a pillar of justice rather than a potential source of bias in the legal system.

A Transcript Without a Certified Court Reporter’s Signature: The Legal and Ethical Implications

In the legal field, the accuracy and integrity of court transcripts are paramount. A certified court reporter’s signature serves as a fundamental guarantee that the transcript is an authentic, complete, and unaltered record of the proceedings. Without such certification, a transcript is akin to a body without bones—lacking the structural integrity necessary to stand up to scrutiny in court. The recent rise of digital reporting services has brought significant challenges to legal professionals, particularly when uncertified or improperly identified transcripts find their way into the courtroom.

The Case of the “Deposition Officer” Transcript

Recently, while engaged in a trial, I encountered a troubling situation. The plaintiff’s counsel read from a deposition transcript ordered by the defendant. However, upon reviewing the document, I noticed a glaring red flag: instead of a certified court reporter’s identification, the transcript referenced “The Deposition Officer.” This immediately raised concerns regarding its authenticity and legal admissibility. (screenshots of deposition taken by a notary is at the end of this article.)

Upon further investigation, it became clear that the transcript had been produced by a digital reporter, rather than a certified stenographic court reporter. Unlike certified reporters who undergo rigorous training, adhere to strict ethical guidelines, and operate under sworn duties, digital reporters often lack the same level of accountability and expertise. The absence of a certification by a licensed professional meant that the transcript could not be considered a true and verifiable record of the deposition.

Legal and Ethical Implications

  1. Admissibility in Court The rules of evidence demand that deposition transcripts must be certified to ensure their reliability. Without certification, a transcript may not meet the legal standards for admissibility. Presenting an uncertified transcript to the court could mislead the judge and jury, leading to potentially unjust rulings based on an unreliable record.
  2. Ethical Responsibilities of Attorneys Attorneys have a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal process. Presenting a transcript from an uncertified source raises serious ethical concerns, as it suggests either a lack of due diligence or an intentional attempt to use unreliable evidence. In this case, the plaintiff’s counsel was aware of the issue but chose to proceed regardless, which could be seen as a breach of professional ethics.
  3. Judicial and Clerical Oversight When I alerted the court clerk to the issue, the response was dismissive—he claimed it was not his concern. However, ensuring that only legally admissible evidence is presented in court should be of paramount concern to all officers of the court, including clerks and judges. The failure to scrutinize such records weakens the judicial system’s commitment to fairness and due process.

California Law on Transcript Certification

California law mandates that deposition transcripts be certified by a licensed court reporter to be legally admissible. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.340(m), only transcripts prepared stenographically by a Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) are automatically admissible in court. Additionally, Business and Professions Code § 8017 requires that all shorthand reporters practicing in the state be licensed by the Court Reporters Board of California. These legal provisions ensure that court transcripts are reliable, accurate, and produced by qualified professionals.

The Dilemma: Speaking Up vs. Remaining Silent

As a legal professional, I found myself in an ethical predicament. Should I alert the court that the transcript was illegal and inadmissible, or would doing so make me appear biased? By allowing the transcript to go unchallenged, I might be complicit in an error that could impact the trial’s outcome. On the other hand, raising the issue could create tensions with both parties, particularly if neither side wanted to acknowledge the mistake.

Ultimately, my duty to the court and the legal system required that I take action. Legal ethics dictate that attorneys must act in good faith and strive to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Allowing an uncertified transcript to be used without objection would undermine this obligation.

Attorneys Cannot Stipulate Away the Law

Attorneys cannot simply agree to disregard or override established laws, including those that govern the admissibility of court transcripts. Legal statutes exist to maintain fairness, accuracy, and due process in judicial proceedings, and private agreements between attorneys cannot supersede these requirements. In the case of deposition transcripts, the law explicitly mandates certification by a licensed court reporter. Even if both parties were to stipulate to using an uncertified transcript, the court is not bound by such an agreement if it contradicts statutory law. Ignoring these legal safeguards not only jeopardizes the integrity of the case, but could also lead to sanctions and legal challenges that undermine the credibility of the attorneys involved.

Moreover, attorneys cannot stipulate away a law absent a court order, and even a judge cannot disobey the law. Such an act would be unconstitutional and a violation of due process rights. The legal system is built upon the principle that laws must be followed, and no agreement or judicial discretion can override fundamental legal protections. If a court were to accept an uncertified transcript in direct violation of statutory requirements, it would constitute a failure of due process and could provide grounds for appeal or reversal of a decision. This would be a direct violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution—specifically, the Fifth Amendment (for federal cases) and the Fourteenth Amendment (for state cases). These amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Allowing uncertified transcripts to be used in court undermines the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings, thus violating these constitutional protections.

The Irony of Attorneys Engaging in Illegal Conduct

It is deeply ironic that attorneys—whose very profession is built upon upholding the law—would knowingly engage in conduct that is so grossly illegal. These are individuals who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution and adhere to the rules of professional conduct, yet they are actively participating in or turning a blind eye to legal violations. The hypocrisy is glaring: they argue cases demanding justice, fairness, and strict adherence to legal standards, yet when it suits them, they are willing to ignore fundamental legal requirements for convenience or strategy. This undermines not only their credibility but the public’s trust in the legal system as a whole.

Holding All Parties Accountable

Both the plaintiff and defendant shared responsibility in this situation:

  • Defendant’s Error: The defendant’s decision to use a digital, reporter rather than a certified court reporter, introduced the issue in the first place. Whether this was due to cost-cutting measures or ignorance of legal requirements, it created a significant problem that could have been avoided by hiring a certified professional.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Oversight: By knowingly reading from the uncertified transcript, the plaintiff’s attorney engaged in questionable conduct. Even if the attorney did not order the transcript, the duty to ensure the admissibility and integrity of the evidence presented remains.

Potential Consequences of Uncertified Transcripts

  1. Mistrials and Appeals: If a court ruling is based on an uncertified transcript, it could provide grounds for appeal or even a mistrial, prolonging litigation and increasing costs for all parties involved.
  2. Sanctions for Attorneys: Lawyers who knowingly introduce unreliable evidence may face disciplinary action from their state bar associations.
  3. Erosion of Public Trust: If courts fail to enforce rules regarding transcript certification, it may undermine confidence in the judicial system’s fairness and reliability.

Proposed Solutions and Best Practices

  1. Mandatory Certification Checks: Courts should implement stricter verification processes to ensure that all transcripts submitted as evidence are certified by a licensed court reporter.
  2. Attorney Training and Awareness: Legal professionals must be educated on the risks of using digital reporters and the necessity of certification.
  3. Legislative Action: States should consider enacting laws to clarify the legal standing of digital reporting and reinforce certification requirements for official transcripts.

Conclusion

A transcript without a certified court reporter’s signature is, indeed, like a body without bones—lacking the support and credibility necessary to uphold justice. The reliance on uncertified digital reporters poses serious risks to the integrity of legal proceedings. It is imperative that legal professionals, court staff, and lawmakers work together to address this growing issue and safeguard the reliability of our judicial system. By insisting on proper certification and ethical accountability, we can prevent similar problems from compromising the administration of justice in the future.

CRB Complaint # 2425308.

The following is essentially a Responsible Charge statement from Veritext, claiming to hold the Responsible Charge instead of the Deposition Officer. The Deposition Officer, who is not a licensed court reporter and likely did not transcribe the proceedings, only holds a notary license to swear in the witness. This statement appears on the last two pages of the transcript above. This highlights why the NCRA and state associations should adopt a Responsible Charge statement, establishing as an industry standard that the licensed court reporter, not the agency, is the Responsible Charge.

The Role of the “Deposition Officer” in Court Reporting

In the ever-evolving landscape of court reporting, digital reporters have emerged as a key component in the legal transcription process. However, in certain states where the term “court reporter” is reserved for those who hold specific state certifications, digital reporters are instead designated as “Deposition Officers.” This distinction is particularly notable in California, Texas, and other states where companies like Veritext have adopted the term to ensure compliance with state regulations. Within legal proceedings, these professionals are referred to in the colloquy as “The Officer.” This article explores the role, responsibilities, and legal standing of Deposition Officers, as well as the implications for the court reporting industry.

Understanding the Distinction of Court Reporters vs. Deposition Officers

Traditional court reporters, often known as stenographers, undergo rigorous training and certification processes to ensure accuracy and reliability in transcribing legal proceedings. Many states require official licensing to use the title “court reporter,” and these individuals frequently employ shorthand machines to create verbatim transcripts.

Digital reporters, on the other hand, leverage modern technology, such as high-quality audio recording devices and speech-to-text software, to capture depositions and legal proceedings. While they play a crucial role in preserving legal records, they do not always meet the certification requirements to be officially recognized as court reporters in some states. As a result, companies operating in these jurisdictions have adopted the title “Deposition Officer” for digital reporters to distinguish them from state-certified court reporters and remain in compliance with local laws.

The Responsibilities of a Deposition Officer

Deposition Officers perform many of the same essential functions as court reporters, ensuring the accurate documentation of legal proceedings. Their primary responsibilities include:

  1. Administering Oaths – A Deposition Officer has the legal authority to swear in witnesses, ensuring that testimonies are given under penalty of perjury.
  2. Recording Proceedings – Instead of using stenographic machines, Deposition Officers rely on digital audio or video recording devices to capture the spoken word accurately.
  3. Monitoring Audio Clarity – To produce a precise transcript, a Deposition Officer must ensure the quality of the recording by adjusting microphones, managing background noise, and asking speakers to repeat unclear statements if necessary.
  4. Certifying Transcripts – Once a deposition has been transcribed, the Deposition Officer DOES not review or certify the transcript to verify its authenticity; it’s done by the agency who is including their new agency responsible charge statement and the notary certificate of the Deposition Officer, who does not review the transcript, and the transcriptionist certificate page.
  5. Ensuring Compliance – Deposition Officers must adhere to federal and state regulations regarding digital reporting and maintain a clear chain of custody for recorded materials.

Legal and Industry Recognition of Deposition Officers

While digital reporting continues to gain traction, not all states formally recognize Deposition Officers in the same capacity as licensed court reporters. California and Texas are two of the primary states where the term is commonly used, largely due to their strict certification requirements for traditional court reporters.

In California, the Business and Professions Code requires individuals who identify as “court reporters” to be licensed by the Certified Shorthand Reporters Board. Digital reporters who do not hold this credential cannot legally call themselves court reporters, leading to the adoption of “Deposition Officer” as an alternative title. Similarly, Texas has comparable restrictions in place to distinguish between stenographic court reporters and digital reporters who perform deposition-related duties.

This distinction is particularly relevant for firms like Veritext, one of the leading providers of deposition and litigation support services. By using the term “Deposition Officer,” the company ensures that its digital reporters are operating within the legal boundaries set by state regulators while still fulfilling the vital function of capturing and preserving the official record.

The Use of a Speaker Token “The Officer” in Legal Colloquy

One of the most interesting developments in the usage of the term “Deposition Officer” is its application in legal transcripts. In colloquy, where attorneys, witnesses, and other participants are identified by speaker tokens (e.g., “THE WITNESS,” “THE ATTORNEY”), digital reporters serving as Deposition Officers are referred to as “THE OFFICER.”

This designation reinforces their role as neutral, official figures in the deposition process, akin to the function performed by certified court reporters. By standardizing this terminology, the legal industry acknowledges the Deposition Officer’s responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the deposition record, even if they are not officially certified as court reporters in that jurisdiction.

Challenges and Considerations in the Industry

While the use of digital reporting and the Deposition Officer designation is growing, it is not without its challenges. Some of the key concerns include:

  1. Certification and Training Disparities – Since Deposition Officers are not always required to obtain certification, there is ongoing debate about the level of training and oversight needed to ensure accuracy and professionalism.
  2. Legal Recognition and Acceptance – Attorneys and judges accustomed to working with stenographic court reporters may question the reliability of digital reporting methods. Some states still have reservations about adopting digital reporting as a primary means of record-keeping.
  3. Technological Reliability – While digital reporting technology has improved, potential issues such as audio distortions, equipment malfunctions, and transcription errors remain concerns that require strict quality control measures.
  4. Industry Pushback – Traditional court reporters and stenographers argue that the rise of digital reporting may undermine the value of their profession, particularly in states where court reporting certification is required.

The Future of Deposition Officers in Legal Proceedings

As legal technology continues to advance, the role of Deposition Officers is likely to become even more prevalent. Several key trends suggest that digital reporting will continue to gain acceptance:

  • Limitations of AI and Speech Recognition – Artificial intelligence-driven transcription tools are not a viable replacement for human court reporters. Their accuracy is inconsistent, especially with complex legal terminology, multiple speakers, and background noise. Instead of increasing in adoption, these tools often produce errors that require extensive manual corrections, making them unreliable for legal proceedings where precision is critical.
  • Stricter Regulations Against Digital Reporting – Rather than adopting laws to recognize digital reporters, many states are reinforcing regulations to limit or prohibit their use. Lawmakers are increasing oversight to protect the integrity of legal transcripts, recognizing the risks of inaccurate recordings and unreliable AI transcription. This push for stricter certification requirements ensures that only trained, state-certified court reporters handle official records, further restricting the role of digital reporters.
  • Higher Costs and Accessibility Issues – Digital reporting is not a more cost-effective solution for legal proceedings, even in areas with a shortage of certified court reporters. Technical glitches, audio malfunctions, and missing portions of the record can lead to disputes, case delays, or even lost cases. These issues may result in costly litigation to resolve transcript inaccuracies, ultimately making digital reporting more expensive and unreliable.
  • Lack of Industry Standardization – Digital reporting lacks uniform standards across jurisdictions, leading to inconsistencies in training, qualifications, and transcript quality. Without strict regulations, the role of Deposition Officers may vary widely, creating confusion and reliability concerns. The absence of a universally accepted standard can undermine the credibility of digital transcripts, making it difficult for attorneys and courts to trust their accuracy and admissibility in legal proceedings.

The rise of the Deposition Officer is not due to the natural evolution of court reporting but rather the result of industry players infiltrating the market, exploiting loopholes, and taking advantage of states without Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) requirements. The lack of oversight has allowed digital reporting to proliferate, but with increasing scrutiny and stronger regulations, this workaround is unlikely to last as states move to protect transcript accuracy.

As the legal profession recognizes the flaws in digital reporting, the debate over its use is shifting in favor of traditional stenography. With increasing regulatory scrutiny, growing concerns over accuracy, and stronger certification requirements, the role of the Deposition Officer is likely to diminish. Instead of expanding, digital reporting will face greater restrictions as courts and legislators work to preserve the reliability of the official record.

Ensuring the Integrity of Transcripts in Legal Proceedings

Deposition transcripts are more than just records of legal proceedings—they serve as essential tools in litigation. They capture witness testimony verbatim, preserving crucial details that can influence the outcome of a case. However, as technology continues to evolve and the legal industry embraces new recording methods, the authenticity and reliability of deposition transcripts face increasing risks.

At the core of this issue is the certification of transcripts. A deposition transcript’s admissibility and integrity depend on whether it is produced by a certified court reporter. Without this certification, the validity of the transcript can be challenged, potentially jeopardizing legal proceedings.

The Importance of Certification in Legal Transcripts

Certification is not merely a procedural formality—it ensures accuracy, impartiality, and confidentiality. Certified court reporters undergo extensive training and must adhere to professional standards that uphold the integrity of legal records. They are bound by ethical rules that govern the handling of transcripts, including chain of custody, security measures, and unbiased reporting.

Noncertified transcripts, on the other hand, lack these protections and may be subject to errors, unauthorized alterations, or breaches of confidentiality. The introduction of recording technology as an alternative to certified court reporters raises serious concerns about whether such transcripts meet the rigorous standards required for court admissibility.

Questions to Determine Transcript Certification

To ensure the reliability of deposition transcripts, attorneys and legal professionals must ask the right questions before scheduling court reporting services. Consider the following inquiries:

  1. Is the court reporter certified per state requirements where the deposition is conducted?
    • Certification varies by state, but it is a fundamental requirement to ensure compliance with legal standards.
  2. Does the transcript remain in the custody of the court reporter?
    • Maintaining chain of custody ensures that the transcript remains secure and unaltered until its final delivery.
  3. Is the transcript outsourced to unauthorized individuals or transcribed overseas?
    • Offshoring transcription services introduces risks of inaccuracies, security breaches, and a lack of oversight.
  4. Is a recording device being used in place of a certified court reporter for the primary purpose of capturing testimony?
    • While recording devices may serve as supplementary tools, they cannot replace the accuracy and certification provided by a trained court reporter.

If you answered “yes” to Questions 1 and 2, your deposition transcripts are likely certified and reliable for legal use. However, if you answered “yes” to Questions 3 and 4, your transcripts may be at risk of being inadmissible in court.

The Risks of Noncertified Deposition Transcripts

Legal professionals must recognize the potential dangers associated with uncertified transcripts. Here are some of the most critical risks:

  • Inadmissibility in Court: Without certification, opposing counsel may challenge the transcript’s validity, leading to delays, additional costs, or an unfavorable ruling.
  • Errors and Inaccuracies: Noncertified transcription processes, especially those reliant on automated software or outsourced labor, are more prone to misinterpretation and mistakes.
  • Compromised Confidentiality: Uncertified transcripts may not follow strict security protocols, increasing the risk of unauthorized access to sensitive legal information.
  • Loss of Impartiality: Certified court reporters are trained to be neutral parties in legal proceedings. Unregulated transcription services may not adhere to the same ethical guidelines.

Leveraging Technology to Secure Certified Transcripts

Technology, when used appropriately, can enhance the accessibility and efficiency of certified court reporting services. Legal professionals should take advantage of digital tools that help locate and verify certified court reporters, rather than relying on recording devices or noncertified services. Online platforms such as CoverCrow, or court approved lists or directories and industry organizations (NCRA) provide databases of vetted professionals who meet state certifications, county approvals, and national certification requirements.

However, technology should not be misused to replace certified court reporters with automated or offshore transcription services. The use of AI-based speech recognition or outsourcing to noncertified providers might seem cost-effective, but these methods introduce substantial risks to the accuracy and security of deposition transcripts.

The Future of Deposition Transcription in Litigation

As technology continues to reshape the legal industry, maintaining high standards for deposition transcripts must remain a priority. Courts and legal professionals must advocate for policies that uphold certification requirements and educate attorneys on the potential consequences of uncertified transcripts.

Investing in certified court reporters ensures that legal proceedings remain fair, accurate, and protected from unnecessary complications. By prioritizing certification, the legal community can safeguard the integrity of deposition transcripts and ensure justice is served without compromise.

When it comes to legal proceedings, the accuracy and authenticity of deposition transcripts are non-negotiable. Certified court reporters play a vital role in preserving the integrity of these records, ensuring they meet the necessary legal and ethical standards. Before scheduling a court reporting service, attorneys should take the time to verify certification, maintain chain of custody, and avoid the risks associated with uncertified transcripts.

By leveraging technology wisely and advocating for professional certification, legal professionals can protect their cases from unnecessary risks and uphold the highest standards of justice. In an era of rapid technological advancements, one thing remains clear—certified deposition transcripts are essential to fair and reliable legal outcomes.

AB 711 A Missed Opportunity for Court Reporting Reform in California

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.