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.

The Importance of Professional Attire in Elevating the Perception of Court Reporters

Court reporters play a critical role in the legal system. As the guardians of the official record, we ensure that every word spoken in a deposition, trial, or hearing is accurately transcribed. Despite our indispensable contributions, the perception of our profession often does not match the level of skill, expertise, and responsibility we uphold. One way to elevate our standing in the legal community is through our professional attire. By choosing to wear business suits and maintaining a polished appearance, rather than dressing in a way that resembles a kindergarten schoolteacher or casual office worker, we can reinforce the perception of court reporting as a highly skilled and prestigious career.

Why Professional Attire Matters

Perception is reality, and in the legal profession, appearances carry significant weight. Attorneys, judges, and clients expect a certain level of decorum in the courtroom and deposition settings. The way we present ourselves directly impacts how we are perceived, not only as individuals but as representatives of our profession. Dressing in suits and professional business attire communicates authority, confidence, and credibility—qualities that are essential for court reporters to command respect in the legal environment.

Legal professionals, including attorneys and judges, adhere to a formal dress code that signals their role and stature within the judicial system. As court reporters, we interact closely with these professionals and should aim to meet or exceed their standard of dress. A well-tailored suit, polished shoes, and a sophisticated overall look demonstrate that we take our profession seriously and expect to be treated as valued contributors to the legal process.

The Significance of Appearance in Leadership

The importance of professional attire goes beyond our own field—it extends to how we are perceived by other professions. A notable example of this occurred when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wore a sweatshirt and pants to meet President Donald Trump at the White House. His decision to wear casual attire in such an important setting offended many, as it was seen as disrespecting the formality of the Oval Office and undermining the gravitas of the occasion. Despite the context of Zelenskyy’s visit—marked by his leadership in wartime—his attire was criticized as not befitting the dignity of the office he was meeting. This incident serves as a stark reminder of how attire can influence perception, especially in settings where authority, respect, and professionalism are paramount.

Embracing a More Professional Appearance

While teachers serve a vital role in shaping young minds, their dress code is often dictated by practicality and comfort. Many schoolteachers opt for cardigans, floral blouses, khakis, or casual dresses—styles that, while professional in an educational setting, may not project the level of authority and sophistication required in the legal field. Court reporters who adopt a similar style risk being perceived as less authoritative or integral to the legal process.

To distinguish ourselves from the “schoolteacher look” and align with the formality of the legal profession, we should prioritize structured clothing with clean lines, neutral or dark colors, and high-quality fabrics. Blazers, tailored trousers, pencil skirts, and classic button-down shirts all contribute to a polished and professional image. Accessories should be minimal and refined, avoiding anything too flashy or distracting.

Building a Professional Court Reporter Wardrobe

Creating a wardrobe that reflects the prestige of court reporting requires thoughtful selection and investment in high-quality pieces. Below are key elements to consider:

1. Suits and Blazers

A well-fitted suit is the cornerstone of a professional court reporter’s wardrobe. Opt for classic colors such as black, navy, charcoal gray, or deep burgundy. Women can choose between pant suits and skirt suits, while men should ensure their suit jackets and pants match perfectly. Blazers should be structured, tailored, and paired with coordinating dress pants or skirts.

2. Dress Shirts and Blouses

Crisp, button-down shirts and blouses in neutral tones or subtle patterns provide a sophisticated base for any professional outfit. Avoid overly bright colors, ruffles, or casual styles that may detract from the seriousness of the legal setting.

3. Trousers and Skirts

High-quality, tailored trousers in classic colors create a polished look. Women should opt for knee-length or midi-length pencil skirts that complement blazers and dress shirts. Avoid anything too tight, short, or trendy, as these styles can undermine the professionalism we aim to project.

4. Dresses

A structured, knee-length dress in a neutral color can be a sophisticated alternative to a suit. Look for dresses with clean lines, modest necklines, and sleeves that maintain a professional aesthetic. Layering with a blazer further enhances the formal look.

5. Footwear

Shoes should be closed-toe and polished, such as classic pumps, loafers, or dress shoes. Avoid overly high heels, sandals, or casual footwear like sneakers, as these can diminish the formality of an outfit.

6. Accessories and Grooming

Minimalistic and elegant accessories—such as simple stud earrings, a sleek watch, or a structured handbag—complement a professional look. Hair should be neatly styled, and makeup (if worn) should be understated and refined. Well-manicured nails and a clean, polished appearance further reinforce professionalism.

The Psychological and Professional Benefits of Dressing Well

Beyond influencing external perceptions, dressing professionally also has a profound impact on self-perception and confidence. Studies have shown that individuals who dress in formal business attire tend to feel more competent and authoritative. When we look the part, we naturally adopt the demeanor and attitude that align with our appearance.

Additionally, dressing well can lead to better career opportunities. When attorneys and law firms see that a court reporter presents themselves with the same level of professionalism as the legal team, they are more likely to view that individual as a trusted and indispensable part of the legal process. This can result in repeat business, referrals, and opportunities to work on high-profile cases.

Setting the Standard for Future Court Reporters

By committing to a more professional dress code, we also set an example for future court reporters entering the field. Newcomers will look to experienced professionals for guidance on how to navigate the legal environment, and our attire should reflect the standards we wish to uphold.

Associations and court reporting schools can also play a role in emphasizing the importance of professional dress. Encouraging students to adopt business attire early on will prepare them for success in the workforce and reinforce the idea that court reporting is a prestigious and highly regarded profession.

Elevating the Court Reporting Profession Through Attire

Court reporters are an essential part of the legal community, and our attire should reflect the professionalism and importance of our role. Moving away from a casual or “schoolteacher” look and embracing suits and formal business attire will help elevate the perception of our profession. By dressing with intention and sophistication, we command the respect we deserve and solidify our status as indispensable members of the legal field. Investing in a high-quality, professional wardrobe is not just about fashion—it is a strategic step toward gaining recognition, credibility, and career advancement in the legal community.

Court Reporters Breaking Barriers in the Legal World

The legal profession is often perceived as an exclusive club, where connections, privilege, and background dictate success. The story of a determined individual breaking into law against all odds resonates with many who have faced systemic barriers. Yet, while much attention is given to the lawyers themselves, an often-overlooked group within the legal world faces similar challenges and plays an equally vital role—court reporters.

Court reporters are the silent sentinels of the courtroom, capturing every word spoken in legal proceedings with precision and accuracy. Their work is essential in ensuring justice is documented, yet they, too, must navigate a profession that is not always welcoming to outsiders. Like the aspiring lawyer in the inspiration story, court reporters often confront barriers to entry, professional biases, and a lack of recognition for their indispensable contributions.

The Challenge of Breaking In

Just as many aspiring lawyers struggle to secure their first role, court reporters often face a daunting entry process. Training programs are rigorous, requiring not only technical mastery but also linguistic dexterity and unwavering concentration.

For those without industry connections, breaking into court reporting can feel like an uphill battle. Many firms prefer candidates with experience, yet gaining that experience often depends on being given a chance in the first place. Furthermore, like the legal profession, court reporting has historically been dominated by individuals from certain backgrounds, making it harder for those from non-traditional paths to be accepted.

Overcoming Bias and Stereotypes

In the legal world, accents, educational background, and social standing can influence career opportunities. The same biases that affect aspiring lawyers also impact court reporters. There is often an unspoken expectation for court reporters to conform to traditional norms, whether it be in their manner of speech, professional affiliations, or even appearance.

However, court reporters, like lawyers, are proving that skill and determination transcend these biases. The legal field is beginning to recognize that diversity in court reporting brings broader benefits, such as improved accessibility, multilingual capabilities, and a workforce that better represents the communities it serves.

Turning Challenges Into Strengths

Court reporters who have faced rejection, professional roadblocks, or skepticism due to their background often develop resilience that sets them apart. Like the lawyer in the inspiration story, they learn to turn setbacks into motivation, seeking alternative paths and opportunities when traditional doors remain closed.

Many successful court reporters have built their careers by demonstrating excellence in their craft, networking relentlessly, and proving that their work ethic and skill far outweigh superficial factors. They innovate, adapt, and show that success in court reporting—like in law—is not about where you come from, but what you bring to the table.

The Future of Court Reporting is a More Inclusive Profession

Just as law firms benefit from embracing diverse legal professionals, the judicial system gains immeasurably from fostering a more inclusive court reporting profession. Firms that recognize the value of hiring court reporters based on merit, rather than background, will reap the rewards of a more skilled, engaged, and diverse workforce.

Technology is also playing a role in leveling the playing field. Remote court proceedings and the growing acceptance of voice-writing across more states are creating new opportunities for those who may have previously been excluded from traditional court reporting roles. With increased accessibility and recognition of talent over pedigree, the future of court reporting is shifting toward inclusivity and meritocracy.

Conclusion

The journey of an outsider striving to break into the legal profession is not unique to lawyers—it is a challenge faced by court reporters as well. Yet, as the legal industry evolves, those who have persevered through rejection, bias, and adversity are proving to be invaluable assets.

Whether in law or court reporting, the message remains the same: the future belongs to those who bring dedication, skill, and resilience to the table. And for those firms and institutions that recognize and embrace this, the advantages are clear. The question is, are they ready to move forward?

The answer, much like the profession itself, is being written in real time—by those bold enough to redefine the narrative.

The Decentralized Model and Why Entrusting Court Reporters with the Record is Superior to a Centralized System

In an age where digital transformation is reshaping industries, the legal system faces a critical decision. Should it rely on a decentralized model where court reporters are individually entrusted with maintaining the integrity of the record, or should it consolidate all records into a centralized electronic system? While centralized digital recording may appear more efficient, it introduces significant vulnerabilities—floods, fires, cyberattacks, and systemic failures—that could compromise the integrity of the legal record. Examining the Mossad, one of the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world, provides a compelling argument for decentralization as a robust safeguard against catastrophic failures.

The Vital Role of Court Reporters in Safeguarding the Record

Court reporters serve as the frontline guardians of the legal record, ensuring that verbatim transcripts of proceedings are maintained with meticulous accuracy. Their role extends beyond simple transcription. They provide verification, context, and real-time documentation that an electronic system cannot replicate. This decentralized model distributes responsibility across numerous professionals, mitigating the risks inherent in a single point of failure.

Each court reporter employs multiple methods to back up their records, ensuring redundancy and security. These include two machine backup SD cards, a laptop hard drive with a backup file, an immediate backup in the cloud, an external backup hard drive, and audio files stored on both their machine and laptop that are also immediately backed up to the cloud. This results in potentially more than ten backup files for every day worked, creating an unparalleled level of data security and reliability. In contrast, a centralized system places all legal records in one repository—be it a physical data center or a cloud-based server—subjecting them to uniform vulnerabilities. If this central repository is compromised, whether through natural disasters, cyberattacks, or human error, entire case histories could be lost or altered beyond recovery.

The Dangers of a Centralized Record Keeping System

Natural Disasters and the Uncontrollable Threat

Natural disasters such as floods, fires, and earthquakes present unpredictable risks that can devastate centralized facilities. Consider a scenario where a central court record database is housed in a state-of-the-art data center, which is suddenly engulfed by a wildfire. Despite redundancies, the primary location and its backups could both be obliterated, rendering legal records irretrievable.

Hurricanes and floods pose an equally formidable threat. New Orleans’ legal system suffered significant damage during Hurricane Katrina, demonstrating how local devastation can erase crucial government and court records. In a decentralized system, where individual court reporters safeguard transcripts in multiple locations, no single disaster could wipe out an entire legal history.

Cybersecurity and a Looming Crisis

One of the greatest perils of a centralized system is its attractiveness to cybercriminals. A single repository of court records becomes a prime target for hackers who might seek to manipulate evidence, delete incriminating testimony, or hold the system hostage through ransomware attacks.

Consider the recent high-profile cyberattacks on governmental agencies, where hackers infiltrated systems despite extensive security measures. A centralized court record keeping system would be no different. It would be a goldmine for cybercriminals and foreign adversaries looking to disrupt justice. Even with backup servers, if the entire system is controlled through a centralized digital infrastructure, a coordinated attack could compromise multiple layers of security at once.

The Risk of Internal Corruption and Systemic Failures

With all records housed in a single entity’s control, the potential for internal manipulation grows exponentially. A rogue insider with access to the central database could alter, delete, or fabricate court records with little immediate detection. The decentralized model, by contrast, distributes control among independent court reporters, making widespread corruption significantly more difficult.

Additionally, centralized electronic systems are prone to technical failures. Software bugs, hardware malfunctions, or misconfigurations can lead to unintended deletions or corruption of files. Decentralization ensures that if one reporter’s record is lost or damaged, others still exist to verify the proceedings.

The Mossad as a Model for Decentralized Security

One of the most formidable intelligence agencies in the world, the Mossad, provides a real-world example of why decentralization is key to security. Unlike traditional intelligence agencies that rely on centralized command structures, the Mossad disperses operations across autonomous cells, ensuring that the failure of one does not jeopardize the entire organization.

The Mossad’s approach relies on compartmentalization, redundancy, and multiple fail safes, all designed to ensure operational continuity despite any single breach or failure. Similarly, court reporters, acting as independent entities, provide multiple layers of redundancy. If a court proceeding’s official digital recording is lost or tampered with, individual court reporters’ transcripts serve as unimpeachable backups, much like Mossad field agents operate autonomously to prevent intelligence failures.

By adopting a decentralized model akin to the Mossad’s, the legal system can ensure that records remain intact, secure, and verifiable, even in the face of unforeseen challenges.

Ensuring Justice Through a Distributed Approach

A decentralized model does not mean a lack of technological advancement. Court reporters today utilize sophisticated stenographic technology, cloud-based storage, and encrypted backups, all while maintaining independent, physical transcripts. This hybrid model combines the best of both worlds by leveraging technology for efficiency while avoiding the pitfalls of full centralization.

Additionally, decentralized record keeping upholds judicial integrity by ensuring that no single entity has unilateral control over legal documents. The trustworthiness of the justice system depends on the transparency and reliability of its records, which is best achieved when responsibility is spread across multiple professionals rather than confined to a single vulnerable system.

Conclusion and the Strength of Decentralization

While technological advancements offer many benefits, entrusting a centralized system with the preservation of court records is fraught with danger. Floods, fires, cyberattacks, and corruption can all undermine centralized repositories, leading to catastrophic losses. By contrast, decentralization through the continued use of court reporters ensures that legal records are preserved in multiple locations, reducing the risk of systemic failure.

The Mossad’s decentralized intelligence network exemplifies why distributing critical information across multiple independent actors enhances security and resilience. By applying these principles to the legal system, we can safeguard the integrity of judicial records, ensuring that justice is not only served but permanently documented for future generations.

The Unsettling Reality of Online Data Tracking and How It Affects Court Reporters

In the digital age, court reporters face unique privacy challenges. We conduct extensive research for our jobs, coming into contact with attorneys, witnesses, and other legal professionals. Many of us have noticed unsettling patterns where individuals connected to our work appear in our social media suggestions, raising concerns about how our personal information is being used.

Understanding How Our Data Is Tracked

Despite common beliefs, our phones are likely not listening to us. Instead, sophisticated algorithms analyze vast amounts of data to predict our interests and connections. As court reporters, we travel to different locations, interact with a variety of legal professionals, and conduct online research, all of which contribute to data tracking. Some ways this happens include:

  • Location Tracking Our phones detect where we are and who is nearby, potentially linking us with attorneys, witnesses, and others present in depositions or courtrooms.
  • Search and Browsing History Researching legal cases and specific individuals may trigger targeted suggestions and advertisements.
  • Social Media Connections Platforms analyze interactions and shared connections, leading to friend suggestions that may include people from depositions or trials.
  • Data Brokers and Third Parties Information from public records and data-sharing agreements can link us to cases and individuals we have encountered professionally.

The combination of these factors makes it possible for social media platforms to suggest attorneys, witnesses, or other individuals we have encountered, even if we have never directly interacted with them online.

Privacy Concerns for Court Reporters

Because we engage with sensitive information and legal proceedings, it is unsettling to see individuals from depositions or trials appearing in our social media feeds. This can raise ethical concerns and create uncomfortable situations where legal professionals or witnesses attempt to connect with us outside of work.

Steps to Protect Your Privacy

Although we cannot completely eliminate data tracking, we can take steps to reduce its impact on our personal lives.

Limiting Location Tracking

Since our movements can be tracked, it is important to control location settings.

  • Disable location access for unnecessary apps.
  • Turn off Bluetooth and Wi-Fi when not in use.
  • Use a virtual private network (VPN) to mask your location.

Managing App Permissions

Many apps request access to microphones, contacts, and other data they do not need.

  • Regularly review and adjust app permissions.
  • Remove apps that request excessive access.
  • Choose privacy-focused apps whenever possible.

Clearing Search and Browsing History

Since our research plays a role in data tracking, we should manage our digital footprint.

  • Regularly delete cookies and browsing history.
  • Use incognito mode for case research.
  • Consider privacy-focused search engines.

Opting Out of Data Collection

Many social media platforms and data brokers offer opt-out options for data tracking.

  • Adjust Facebook, Google, and other platform privacy settings.
  • Disable ad personalization.
  • Request removal from major data brokers when possible.

Being Cautious With Smart Devices

Although voice-activated devices claim they only record after a wake word, caution is advised.

  • Mute or disable smart assistants when not in use.
  • Turn off unnecessary microphone access.
  • Use hardware-based privacy controls where available.

Limiting Social Media Exposure

To prevent unwanted connections, we should be mindful of what we share online.

  • Adjust privacy settings to limit data sharing.
  • Avoid posting location details or work-related content.
  • Be selective about friend requests and connections.

Why Awareness Is Important for Court Reporters

As professionals who interact with a wide range of people in legal settings, court reporters must be especially vigilant about online privacy. Understanding how data is collected and used can help us make informed choices about how we engage with digital platforms.

While we cannot completely prevent data tracking, taking proactive steps can help safeguard our personal information and maintain professional boundaries in an increasingly interconnected world.

The Dangers of Relying on AI Notetakers During Depositions

As virtual depositions become more commonplace, the use of AI notetakers—software designed to record, transcribe, and summarize legal proceedings—has grown in popularity. The convenience and efficiency of these tools are undeniable, especially in environments where time is of the essence. However, the risks associated with relying on AI in such a sensitive context, particularly in the legal world, cannot be ignored. As AI technology evolves, it brings with it new challenges that could undermine the integrity of legal processes, compromise confidentiality, and expose sensitive information to unforeseen risks.

What Exactly Are AI Notetakers?

AI-powered notetakers are sophisticated tools designed to help with the documentation of meetings, interviews, and depositions. These programs not only record audio and video but also generate detailed transcriptions of proceedings, often summarizing key points and creating actionable follow-up items. This automation can save considerable time for legal professionals, but it comes with significant drawbacks, particularly in legal settings where confidentiality is paramount.

The Hidden Dangers of Using AI in Depositions

While AI can provide significant efficiencies, its application in depositions opens up several areas of concern. These range from legal compliance issues to security risks and potential violations of privacy.

1. Consent and Disclosure Risks

One of the most immediate concerns with AI notetakers is the issue of consent. In most jurisdictions, laws require that all parties involved in a conversation be made aware that the conversation is being recorded, especially in the context of legal proceedings. While many video conferencing platforms have automatic consent features, AI notetakers may bypass these safeguards, leaving participants unaware that their words and actions are being recorded and stored. This issue is complicated further when remote participants are involved, each of whom may be subject to different consent regulations depending on their location. A failure to obtain consent could have serious legal implications, including noncompliance with state and federal laws governing privacy.

2. Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns

In legal proceedings, privacy is of the utmost importance. Whether it’s sensitive medical records, financial details, or proprietary business information, depositions often involve confidential data that must be protected. Recording this data through AI notetakers could expose it to unwanted scrutiny. Some AI tools can even capture shared screen content, inadvertently making confidential exhibits vulnerable to unauthorized access. Beyond mere transcription, the very act of recording an individual’s voice or image could potentially compromise privacy, especially in jurisdictions with strict privacy regulations. The sensitive nature of deposition content demands strict control over who has access to this information—something AI systems may not be capable of providing.

3. Security Risks

Security is another critical consideration when using AI tools. When sensitive information is captured and stored, it’s essential to ensure that the data is encrypted and protected against potential breaches. Many AI notetakers rely on cloud storage, which, while convenient, can create significant vulnerabilities if the cloud provider does not have robust security protocols in place. Data breaches have become all too common, and the potential for confidential deposition records to be exposed is a real concern. Furthermore, if sensitive information were to leak, the consequences could include legal ramifications, loss of client trust, and damage to reputations. It’s essential to know exactly how AI vendors store and protect your data before deciding to use their services.

4. Unauthorized Use of Your Data

Another issue to consider is the potential misuse of your data. AI notetakers often learn from the information they process, which means that confidential files and conversations could be used to further train the AI system. Depending on the terms of service, AI vendors may retain access to your data, potentially using it in ways you hadn’t intended. The idea of an external entity—particularly a third-party AI company—learning from your legal data might not sit well with clients and legal professionals who prioritize confidentiality. Before using an AI notetaker, it’s crucial to carefully review the vendor’s privacy policies to understand how your data will be handled.

5. Attorney-Client Privilege

One of the most sacred tenets in legal practice is attorney-client privilege, which ensures that communications between a client and their attorney remain confidential. However, this privilege can be compromised if third parties, such as AI notetakers, are involved in the recording or processing of these communications. In the event that an AI tool inadvertently discloses confidential information, it could jeopardize the attorney-client relationship and waive the privilege. Even though AI systems may be designed to ensure confidentiality, there’s always the risk of an unintended breach—something that could have significant consequences for a client’s case.

6. The Issue of Bias and Inaccuracy

Despite advances in AI, these systems are not flawless. Variations in dialect, accent, speech rate, and even the presence of background noise can all affect the accuracy of AI-generated transcripts. In legal depositions, where every word counts, even minor errors can have significant repercussions. AI transcription systems often struggle with distinguishing between speakers, particularly in cases involving multiple participants with similar voices or overlapping speech. These inaccuracies can create confusion, distort the record, and ultimately undermine the integrity of the legal process. Relying on an AI system that can’t consistently provide accurate results is a dangerous risk in any legal proceeding.

Real-World Scenarios: When AI Goes Wrong

Several real-life examples illustrate the unintended consequences of using AI in sensitive settings. In one case, a virtual investor meeting was followed by the release of a transcript not only of the meeting but also of private conversations that occurred after the meeting had ended. This inadvertent disclosure led the participant to pull out of a deal. In another instance, a Los Angeles software designer received a transcript that included a conversation about him, even though one of the participants had muted herself. The mute function on the virtual meeting platform didn’t stop the AI notetaker from recording audio, which led to a serious privacy breach.

These scenarios highlight the potential dangers of relying on AI to capture sensitive conversations. Whether in a deposition or business meeting, the consequences of an AI system malfunctioning or misinterpreting off-the-record discussions could be severe.

Why Choose a Certified Court Reporter?

Given the significant risks associated with AI notetakers, it’s clear that a human professional remains the best option for ensuring the integrity of a deposition record. A certified court reporter is bound by strict professional and ethical standards. They understand the importance of maintaining confidentiality, and their work is protected by licensing and legal regulations that hold them accountable for the accuracy of the transcript.

Court reporters are skilled in managing complex legal proceedings, and unlike AI systems, they are able to discern when information should remain off the record. They are also trained to ensure that sensitive data is kept secure, providing an added layer of protection that AI tools cannot offer. When you choose a certified court reporter, you’re ensuring that the deposition record remains accurate, confidential, and legally compliant.

In today’s world, where data security and privacy are paramount, opting for a professional human notetaker is the most reliable way to safeguard your client’s interests and protect the integrity of your legal proceedings. Though AI tools may offer convenience, they come with risks that cannot be ignored. When the stakes are high, it’s best to rely on the expertise and accountability of a certified court reporter.

Court Reporters Must Go West!

The expansion of the American frontier in the 19th century is a remarkable story of exploration, innovation, and the creation of new paths to meet the demands of the time. As settlers pushed westward in search of opportunity, they encountered vast, unexplored terrain, which required them to build new roads, railways, and infrastructure. The need for efficient transportation systems was clear: settlers had to be able to move goods, people, and resources to thrive in their new homes. From rugged trails to the advent of the Transcontinental Railroad, the American West was built by forging new routes that connected distant places.

In many ways, this historical journey parallels the road that court reporters must take today. As the legal field grows and the demand for services increases, court reporters are navigating new terrain to meet the evolving needs of the industry. Much like the pioneers who built roads to move forward, today’s court reporters are building new paths to ensure they can keep up with the increasing workload and demand for their services.

The Need for New Roads in the Old West

When settlers first ventured west, they were faced with untamed landscapes that were not conducive to easy travel. In the beginning, pioneers relied on trails like the Oregon, California, and Santa Fe Trails. These dirt paths wound through mountains, deserts, and plains, facilitating the migration of settlers, traders, and explorers. However, these roads were often difficult, unreliable, and time-consuming. As the West became more populated and commerce boomed, the need for more efficient travel became essential.

The solution came with the development of the railroad. The Transcontinental Railroad, completed in 1869, revolutionized the movement of people and goods across the United States, linking the eastern and western parts of the country with a single, continuous line of track. It made long-distance travel and freight transport faster, more efficient, and more reliable. The railroad transformed the American landscape and opened up new opportunities for growth, trade, and settlement.

Just as settlers had to build these roads and railways to facilitate their westward journey, court reporters today must also build new routes to keep up with the demands of the modern legal world.

Court Reporters on the New Frontier

Today’s court reporters are tasked with a challenging and rapidly evolving job: transcribing courtroom proceedings accurately and efficiently. As legal cases become more frequent, complex, and time-sensitive, the need for fast and reliable reporting grows. Court reporters must find new ways to meet the demand of increased workloads while maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the record, just as settlers had to create new ways of traversing rough and unpredictable landscapes.

The challenge for court reporters, however, is not about abandoning traditional methods but about building better, more efficient “roads” to procure their work. The traditional methods of court reporting—stenography and transcription—remain essential, but they must now be supported by new infrastructure that facilitates faster, more efficient collaboration and job coverage.

The Road to Success in Leveraging Technology to Build Better Paths

The modern “road” that court reporters need to navigate is one that connects professionals and agencies across the country. The demand for services is high, and court reporters need to find ways to work together more effectively to meet that demand. In the same way that the railroad connected the East and West, court reporters must be able to connect with one another to share resources and efficiently cover the growing number of legal proceedings.

One platform that is helping court reporters build these new roads is CoverCrow, a collaborative platform that brings together court reporters and agencies and their jobs in one place. Just as the settlers needed a network of roads to reach their destinations, court reporters need a seamless system to ensure they can cover jobs across the country. CoverCrow allows all available job opportunities to be displayed on a centralized job board. Through the platform, court reporters can communicate, share updates, and distribute work in real-time, making the process more efficient and transparent.

CoverCrow creates an environment where court reporters can come together, share job opportunities, and manage their workloads with ease. This digital “roadway” makes it simpler for court reporters to stay connected and quickly find opportunities to cover jobs, even in remote or high-demand locations. Just as the railroad enabled settlers to traverse vast distances, platforms like CoverCrow enable court reporters to navigate the modern legal landscape quickly and efficiently, ensuring that no job goes uncovered.

By building this digital infrastructure, CoverCrow provides court reporters with the tools they need to maintain their traditional methods of reporting, while also enhancing their ability to collaborate and manage their workload. Much like the roads and railways that connected the farthest reaches of the American frontier, CoverCrow helps court reporters stay connected to a broader network, ensuring that they can meet the rising demand for services without compromising the quality and accuracy of the work.

Building Reliable Networks through Collaboration and Communication

One of the most vital aspects of this new infrastructure is the ability to collaborate and communicate effectively. Just as the Transcontinental Railroad connected distant parts of the country, court reporters must be able to communicate and share information across large geographical areas. Collaboration tools that connect reporters with agencies and other professionals are key to building this new “road system” within the industry.

CoverCrow facilitates this by offering a centralized platform where court reporters can view job postings, communicate with agencies, and manage their schedules. This system ensures that job coverage is distributed efficiently, allowing court reporters to access opportunities in different regions without the need for cumbersome communication channels. The platform creates a streamlined process for handling job assignments and enables reporters to stay up-to-date on new opportunities.

Building a reliable network of court reporters across the country is essential for meeting the demands of today’s legal environment. As more legal proceedings take place online or remotely, court reporters must adapt to new working conditions. With platforms like CoverCrow, they are empowered to do just that by maintaining constant communication, collaborating with colleagues, and keeping a steady flow of work without missing a beat.

Charting the Course

The story of westward expansion is one of perseverance, innovation, and the creation of new paths to overcome obstacles. Just as settlers built roads and railways to connect the East and West, court reporters today must build modern “roads” to keep up with the demands of the legal profession. The challenges are different, but the underlying principle remains the same: by creating reliable, efficient pathways, court reporters can continue to meet the growing demands of their work.

Platforms like CoverCrow offer the tools necessary to create these new pathways, allowing court reporters to collaborate more effectively, stay connected, and efficiently distribute work across the country. These digital roads ensure that court reporters can meet the demands of the legal system while maintaining the integrity of their traditional methods. The journey may be long, but with the right infrastructure in place, court reporters can continue to thrive in the modern legal landscape, much like the pioneers who built the roads that helped the United States grow into the nation it is today.

Courting the Frontier with Court Reporters’ Courageous Charge Westward

In the mid-19th century, the United States experienced a period of rapid expansion and transformation, particularly as settlers moved westward in search of new opportunities. This westward movement necessitated the establishment of legal systems and infrastructures in newly formed territories and states. As courts were established to administer justice, the role of court reporters became increasingly vital to ensure accurate and reliable records of legal proceedings.

The Westward Expansion and Legal Challenges

The westward expansion was facilitated by various routes, such as the Oregon Trail, the California Trail, and later, the Transcontinental Railroad. These pathways enabled thousands of settlers to move westward, leading to the rapid development of new communities. With this growth came the need for legal systems to manage disputes, property claims, and criminal activities. Courts were established to uphold law and order, but they faced significant challenges, including a lack of infrastructure and qualified personnel.

The Emergence of Court Reporting

In the early days of the American legal system, court proceedings were often documented by judges or not at all, leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The need for a dedicated role to transcribe legal proceedings became evident, giving rise to the profession of court reporting. Court reporters were responsible for creating verbatim records of trials, hearings, and other legal events, ensuring that accurate transcripts were available for appeals and future reference.

Court Reporters Moving West

As the United States expanded westward, the role of court reporters became crucial in establishing legal systems in newly formed territories. In the early days, courtrooms were often staffed by a single court reporter who handled everything—from managing the judge’s calendar and exhibits to overseeing jurors and swearing in witnesses. As workloads increased, courts hired clerks, shifting many of these responsibilities away from court reporters. Despite these changes, court reporters continued ensuring the accuracy of legal records, preserving justice in a rapidly changing frontier. Their dedication laid the foundation for the modern legal profession in the American West.

Technological Advancements

The late 19th century saw significant technological advancements that transformed court reporting. In the 1870s, American court reporter Miles Bartholomew invented the first stenotype machine, revolutionizing the speed and accuracy of transcription. This innovation was particularly beneficial in the fast-paced legal environments of the western territories, where efficient record-keeping was crucial. The introduction of stenotype machines allowed court reporters to keep pace with the rapid speech of legal proceedings, ensuring that records were both accurate and comprehensive.

Establishment of Professional Associations

The growth of the court reporting profession led to the formation of professional associations aimed at standardizing practices and advocating for reporters’ interests. In 1899, the National Shorthand Reporters Association (now the National Court Reporters Association) was founded. This organization played a pivotal role in promoting the profession, setting ethical standards, and providing training opportunities. Its influence extended to the western states, where court reporters benefited from the resources and support offered by the association.

Challenges in the Western Territories

Despite technological advancements and organizational support, court reporters in the western territories faced unique challenges. The vast distances between settlements meant that reporters often traveled extensively to cover court sessions. Additionally, the lack of established legal traditions in some areas required court reporters to adapt to varying procedures and practices. The rugged and often lawless nature of the frontier also posed personal safety risks, making the profession both demanding and perilous.

Impact on the Legal System

The presence of skilled court reporters in the western territories had a profound impact on the legal system. Accurate transcripts of proceedings ensured that justice was administered fairly and that legal decisions were based on precise records. This reliability bolstered public trust in the judicial system, which was essential for the stability and growth of new communities. Moreover, the documentation of legal proceedings provided valuable insights into the societal issues and conflicts prevalent during the westward expansion.

Legacy of Western Court Reporters

The dedication and resilience of court reporters who ventured westward left an enduring legacy. Their commitment to accuracy and integrity set high standards for the profession and contributed significantly to the development of the American legal system. Today, court reporters continue to play a crucial role in ensuring that justice is accurately documented, a tradition that owes much to those early pioneers who recognized the importance of their work in the expanding western frontier.

Conclusion

The westward expansion of the United States was a transformative period that required the establishment of robust legal systems in new territories. Court reporters were indispensable in this process, providing accurate records of legal proceedings and upholding the rule of law. Their journey westward, marked by challenges and innovations, reflects a significant chapter in the history of the legal profession and the development of the American frontier.

The Consequences Attorneys Face for Using Digital Court Reporters in States Requiring Licensed Court Reporters

The legal industry is witnessing an increasing reliance on digital tools, artificial intelligence, and automation. However, with this technological shift comes the challenge of maintaining compliance with state laws and ethical responsibilities. A recent example highlighting the dangers of misusing AI in legal filings is the Morgan & Morgan case, where an attorney was sanctioned for citing fictitious cases generated by AI. This raises a significant question: when will attorneys be sanctioned, fined, or otherwise punished for using digital court reporters in states that mandate the use of licensed court reporters?

The Legal Requirements for Court Reporters in Certain States

Many states have strict laws requiring that only licensed court reporters be used in legal proceedings. These laws are in place to ensure accuracy, reliability, and adherence to proper legal procedures. Licensed court reporters undergo rigorous training and certification to ensure that they can accurately transcribe and record court proceedings. The shift to digital court reporting, often involving AI-generated transcripts and automated systems, presents both opportunities and risks.

Attorneys who choose to use digital court reporters in states where a licensed court reporter is required are at risk of facing severe legal and professional consequences. Courts, bar associations, and regulatory bodies will likely treat such violations as ethical breaches, leading to potential sanctions, fines, and even disbarment.

Potential Sanctions and Fines Attorneys May Face

Unauthorized Practice of Law or Professional Misconduct

Attorneys who bypass state laws by using unlicensed digital court reporters could be deemed to have engaged in professional misconduct. The unauthorized practice of law, in some jurisdictions, extends beyond representation in court and can include improper procedures in legal proceedings. Violating these requirements could result in disciplinary action from the state bar.

Fines and Financial Penalties

Attorneys found guilty of violating court reporter mandates may face financial penalties, similar to the fines seen in the Morgan & Morgan case. Courts could impose fines for failing to adhere to legal procedures, which could range from nominal fees to substantial penalties designed to deter future violations. Additionally, attorneys could be held financially liable for any inaccuracies in the transcript that lead to case complications.

Revocation of Court Privileges or Licenses

Just as the attorney in the Morgan & Morgan case had their pro hac vice (PHV) admission revoked, attorneys violating court reporter laws could face similar penalties. Courts may revoke an attorney’s ability to practice in a jurisdiction, leading to long-term reputational damage and financial loss. If the violation is deemed egregious, an attorney could also face disbarment or suspension from practicing law altogether.

Reputational Damage and Client Trust Issues

Beyond legal sanctions, attorneys who fail to comply with court reporting regulations may face irreversible reputational damage. Clients expect their legal representatives to act within the bounds of the law and provide competent representation. If an attorney is found to be cutting corners by using unapproved digital court reporters, their credibility may suffer, leading to a loss of clients and potential malpractice claims.

Lessons from the Morgan & Morgan Case

The Morgan & Morgan case highlights two critical lessons that apply not only to AI-generated legal work but also to the broader issue of legal compliance:

  1. Verification is Essential
    • AI tools and digital systems should not be blindly trusted. Attorneys must verify the accuracy of all information before submitting it to the court. This applies equally to legal research and court reporting. If a state requires licensed court reporters, attorneys must ensure compliance, rather than assuming digital alternatives meet legal standards.
  2. Responsibility is Non-Negotiable
    • Attorneys are responsible for filings submitted under their name, even if they were not directly involved in drafting them. This principle extends to court reporting. If an attorney allows an unlicensed digital court reporter to be used in a jurisdiction where licensing is required, they are ultimately accountable for that decision and its consequences.

The Future of Sanctions for Non-Compliance

As digital court reporting becomes more common, courts and regulatory bodies are likely to impose stricter enforcement measures. Attorneys should anticipate:

  • Increased Scrutiny from State Bars: Bar associations may introduce new guidelines explicitly prohibiting the use of digital court reporters where licensing is mandated. Violators could face immediate disciplinary action.
  • Heightened Court Oversight: Judges may begin asking attorneys to confirm compliance with court reporting laws before proceedings commence. Those found in violation may face immediate penalties.
  • Stronger Client Protections: Clients who suffer due to inaccurate or improper transcripts from digital court reporters may have stronger legal grounds to file malpractice claims against attorneys who failed to comply with state regulations.

Mitigating the Risks

To avoid sanctions and penalties, attorneys must take proactive steps:

  • Stay Informed on State Laws: Before engaging in any legal proceedings, attorneys should confirm whether their jurisdiction requires licensed court reporters and ensure compliance.
  • Conduct Due Diligence on Digital Tools: If using digital court reporting services, attorneys must verify whether these tools are legally permissible in their jurisdiction.
  • Review All Filings and Transcripts: Just as attorneys must review AI-generated filings, they should also review digital transcripts to ensure accuracy and compliance.
  • Seek Clarification When in Doubt: If there is any uncertainty about whether a digital court reporter is legally allowed, attorneys should seek guidance from the court or a regulatory body before proceeding.

Conclusion

The Morgan & Morgan sanctions serve as a cautionary tale for attorneys who may be tempted to rely on digital solutions without proper oversight. Just as courts are now holding attorneys accountable for AI-generated filings, they will likely enforce strict penalties for the use of digital court reporters in states that mandate licensed professionals. Attorneys must prioritize compliance, verification, and responsibility to avoid facing fines, sanctions, and potential damage to their legal careers. The message is clear: when it comes to legal proceedings, adherence to state-mandated regulations is not optional.

A Stark Lesson in Supply and Demand: The State of Court Reporting in 2025

The principles of supply and demand are playing out in real time in the court reporting industry, and the implications are more significant than ever.

In 2014, the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) commissioned a study by market analyst Ducker Worldwide, which projected that demand for court reporters would exceed supply by 2018, leading to a nationwide shortage. The report estimated that 5,500 new court reporter positions would open as older professionals retired. At the time, 70% of the nation’s 32,000 court reporters were over the age of 45, raising concerns about the profession’s future.

Following the 2014 Ducker study, three distinct responses emerged:

  1. Efforts to enhance efficiency and mitigate the shortage.
  2. Initiatives aimed at increasing the number of court reporters.
  3. Attempts to diminish demand through digital recording and unlicensed transcription services, often at the expense of stenographers and fair compensation.

To boost efficiency, two major SaaS (Software as a Service) platforms, Stenovate and CoverCrow, were launched in 2018. Stenovate streamlines collaboration between court reporters, scopists, and proofreaders, increasing productivity. CoverCrow connects court reporters with agencies, allowing them to accept jobs more efficiently through advanced job alert filters. In 2021, CoverCrow integrated with ProCat, enabling court reporters to receive job alerts directly in their CAT software. Around the same time, NCRA introduced ProLink, and Stenograph launched Apex, both aimed at improving job accessibility for stenographers.

Organizations like Project Steno and NCRA’s AtoZ program have spearheaded recruitment and training efforts to increase the number of court reporters. Industry partners, including agencies, vendors, and individual stenographers, have supported these initiatives through significant donations. Court reporting schools ramped up recruitment, and notable figures such as Mark Kislingbury expanded training programs. Social media became a powerful tool, with stenographers sharing their career journeys across platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Twitter. The profession even gained mainstream recognition when Whitney Kumar became the official stenographer for the TV show Judy Justice.

However, the industry has faced challenges from those seeking to bypass traditional stenographic methods. Court reporting is a $3 billion industry, attracting opportunists looking to cut costs at the expense of quality and legality. A loophole in California law allowed notaries to serve as deposition officers, leading to a surge of videographers obtaining notary certifications and assuming court reporter roles. Some agencies instructed videographers to simply record proceedings rather than provide stenographic transcripts, eventually going so far as to have them self-identify as “court reporters.” This practice evolved further, with agencies employing separate personnel to press the record button, concealing the dual roles of videographers.

The situation became even more troubling when agencies began advising law firms to alter notice language, stipulating that depositions could be recorded digitally and later transcribed—directly violating laws in 23 states requiring stenographic transcription. Such practices challenge due process protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Some California judges have refused to admit uncertified transcripts in legal proceedings, but with only a small percentage of cases going to trial, agencies continue to take their chances. If legal negligence claims arise from these shortcuts, the consequences could be severe.

Now, more than a decade after the Ducker study, the true number of active court reporters in the U.S. remains unclear. Organizations like the now-defunct STTI, which advocated for digital reporting, claimed a staggering shortage of 33,000 reporters—an unverified and grossly exaggerated figure. However, court reporting schools have seen increased enrollment, partly driven by career shifts prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many professionals seeking stable, well-paying jobs have turned to stenography, challenging the narrative of an insurmountable shortage.

The industry needs updated data. The NCRA should commission a new study to assess the actual state of court reporting today. The outdated 2014 Ducker study, which inaccurately projected a severe shortage by 2018, continues to be misused by those looking to push alternative solutions that undermine stenographers. It’s time for the NCRA to provide clarity and hope for the profession.

Emily Dickinson once wrote, “Hope is the thing with feathers / That perches in the soul.” As we navigate the challenges ahead, the court reporting profession must rely on its resilience and adaptability. With strong advocacy, innovation, and a renewed commitment to accuracy and professionalism, stenographers can secure their rightful place in the legal system for years to come.

The Secret to Stopping Test Anxiety and Stage Fright for Court Reporters

Anxiety is an unwelcome but all-too-common companion for court reporters, whether in high-pressure certification tests or the intense atmosphere of a courtroom with jurors closely watching every keystroke. Many of us have experienced the physical manifestations of anxiety—shaking hands, a racing heart, and a mind clouded by nerves. But what if there was a simple way to shut off this response, almost like flipping a switch? I discovered a method that instantly calms my nerves, and it has transformed the way I approach high-stakes situations.

Discovering the “Off Switch” for Anxiety

The realization came to me during a trial where jury voir dire was taking place. The jurors were seated just two feet away, their curious eyes locked onto me as I typed. I wasn’t even consciously aware that they were watching at first, but my body knew. My hands began shaking uncontrollably, hitting the wrong keys, and my steno screen filled with red, untranslated text—a court reporter’s nightmare.

That’s when I discovered the key to stopping the anxiety in its tracks. I mentally commanded my body to stop being nervous. I accessed a specific place in my brain, the same one that controls physical movement, and simply switched off the nervous response. Instantly, my body relaxed. The shaking stopped. The anxiety was gone.

How This Technique Works

To understand how to activate this switch, let’s do a simple exercise. As you’re sitting in your chair, tell your leg to lift off the ground—but don’t actually do it. Just mentally instruct your leg to rise. Now, instead of consciously commanding it, just pick your leg up about five inches. Notice the difference? The first action is a thought; the second taps into the actual motor function that makes movement happen.

That second action—the one that effortlessly lifts your leg—is the same neurological pathway that can shut off anxiety. Instead of telling yourself, “I hope I stop being nervous” or “I wish this anxiety would go away,” you bypass the thought process and go straight to the action. You tell your body, with absolute certainty, “Stop.” And just like lifting your leg, your body obeys.

Applying the Technique in High-Stress Situations

This method has worked consistently for me, whether in test settings or in the courtroom. Here’s how you can apply it when you feel anxiety creeping in:

  1. Recognize the Physical Signs
    • Shaking hands, a tight chest, a queasy stomach—your body gives you clear signals that anxiety is taking over. The first step is awareness.
  2. Mentally Command the Anxiety to Stop
    • Instead of wishing it away or trying to reason with it, activate the same control center that moves your body. Instruct yourself: “Stop.”
  3. Access the “Action” Center of Your Brain
    • Think of it like lifting your leg. You don’t hesitate or negotiate with yourself—you just do it. Use that same mechanism to stop anxiety.
  4. Feel the Immediate Shift
    • Your body will respond immediately. The tension will release, your heart rate will slow, and your mind will clear. It’s as if you’ve hit the “off” button on nervousness.

Why This Works: The Neurological Basis

Anxiety is essentially a fight-or-flight response controlled by the amygdala, a part of the brain responsible for processing fear. When we consciously recognize fear but don’t actively stop it, the amygdala takes over, flooding our system with stress hormones.

By engaging the motor control area of the brain—the part that directly controls movement—we override the amygdala’s dominance. Instead of feeding into anxiety, we shift focus to a part of the brain that responds to direct commands. This is why the technique works instantly. It bypasses the fear-processing mechanism and engages the part of the brain that takes action, effectively turning anxiety off like a switch.

Real-Life Results: No More Test Anxiety or Stage Fright

Since discovering this technique, I no longer suffer from test anxiety. Before, sitting for a certification exam meant battling nerves that could sabotage my performance. Now, the moment I feel anxiety trying to creep in, I tell my body to stop, and it does. The same applies in the courtroom. I no longer fear jurors watching me type, because I know I have the power to shut off my nervous response in an instant.

Many of my fellow court reporters struggle with similar issues, from stage fright to performance anxiety. I encourage everyone to try this technique and experience the transformation for themselves.

Practical Tips for Mastering the Technique

  • Practice in Low-Stress Situations: Before using this method in high-pressure settings, practice it in everyday life. When you feel even mild anxiety—such as waiting in line at the DMV or speaking up in a meeting—use the switch to turn it off.
  • Reinforce the Mind-Body Connection: Strengthen your ability to control anxiety by pairing this method with deep breathing or mindfulness exercises.
  • Trust the Process: The key is absolute confidence in your ability to command your body. If you doubt it, your mind may resist. Commit fully to the instruction: “Stop.”
  • Use Visualization: If you struggle to access the switch at first, visualize yourself flipping an actual switch in your brain that turns anxiety off.

A New Era for Court Reporters

Court reporting is an incredibly demanding profession that requires accuracy, composure, and focus under pressure. The ability to control anxiety on command is a game-changer. Imagine walking into any test, deposition, or trial knowing that you have complete control over your nerves. The confidence this brings is immeasurable.

For those struggling with performance anxiety, whether in test-taking or under the watchful eyes of a jury, I urge you to try this technique. The power to shut off anxiety is already within you—it’s simply a matter of activating the right switch. Once you master this, you’ll never have to let nerves dictate your performance again.

Final Thoughts

Finding this technique has been life-changing for me, and I truly believe it can be for others as well. We often think of anxiety as something that happens to us, but in reality, we have much more control over it than we realize. If you’re a court reporter—or anyone who struggles with stage fright or test anxiety—know that you can stop it. The secret lies in using the same brain function that lifts your leg: an action-driven, undeniable command to just stop the nerves.

Try it, refine it, and experience the difference. Anxiety doesn’t have to control you. You control it.

Corrupt Courts and Vanishing Voices: The Peril of Power Without Proof

The saying “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is a widely recognized adage that reflects a fundamental truth about human nature and governance. This phrase, often attributed to Lord Acton, encapsulates the observation that when individuals or institutions gain unchecked power, they are prone to corruption. However, the concept predates Acton’s famous quote and has been expressed in various forms throughout history by philosophers, politicians, and scholars.

Lord Acton, whose full name was John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first coined the phrase in 1857, later refining it in an 1887 letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, where he stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” While Acton is credited with the saying, he was not the first to articulate the dangers of unchecked power. His thoughts echoed those of earlier figures, including William Pitt the Elder, the British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, who stated in a speech to the House of Lords in 1770, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.”

Even further back, ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle extensively discussed the risks of tyranny and the necessity of the rule of law. They warned that a government that serves its own interests rather than those of the people is inherently corrupt. Plato, in particular, described the cycle of political decay in which democracy can lead to tyranny if power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler who prioritizes personal gain over the common good.

The founding fathers of the United States were acutely aware of these dangers and took deliberate steps to prevent tyranny when drafting the Constitution. John Adams, for instance, observed, “My opinion is, and always has been, that absolute power intoxicates alike despots, monarchs, aristocrats, and democrats.” To mitigate the risks of concentrated power, the founders established a system of checks and balances by dividing governmental authority into three branches: the executive (president), the legislative (Congress), and the judicial (Supreme Court). Each branch was given the ability to check the others, ensuring that no single entity could become too powerful.

Additionally, the legislative branch was further divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate to prevent impulsive decision-making driven by popular sentiment. The Constitution also explicitly limited governmental powers by enumerating them, ensuring that the federal government could not overreach. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, provided further safeguards by protecting individual freedoms against governmental encroachment. In the judicial system, federal judges were granted lifetime appointments to insulate them from political pressure and ensure their rulings were based on law rather than political expediency.

One often-overlooked but crucial element of the judicial system that serves as a check against corruption is the role of court reporters. These professionals are responsible for creating accurate, impartial records of court proceedings, ensuring transparency and accountability. Unlike judges, court reporters operate independently and are not under direct judicial control. This independence allows them to serve as neutral guardians of the legal record. A judge may issue an order, but a court reporter has the authority to ensure that the record remains unaltered, a responsibility that is vital for upholding justice.

Court reporters ensure that legal transcripts accurately reflect courtroom proceedings, which can later be reviewed by appellate courts. Judges frequently acknowledge their importance, often stating, “The court reporter is the most important person in the room.” Without their meticulous documentation, rulings could be subject to manipulation, undermining the judicial system’s integrity. However, despite their crucial role, the importance of court reporters is often overlooked, and efforts to replace them with electronic recording systems threaten to undermine judicial accountability.

A recent example of the dangers of relying on electronic recording systems over human court reporters can be found in the case of Darrell Brooks, who was convicted of multiple counts of murder and other offenses for his role in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack on November 21, 2021. Prior to the attack, Brooks had been released on an inexplicably low bail of $1,000 after allegedly running over the mother of his child with the same SUV used in the parade attack. The circumstances surrounding this bail decision came under intense scrutiny, and media outlets sought the transcript of his November 5th bail hearing. However, they were informed that no record of the hearing existed due to a “failure of audio recording equipment.”

Further investigation revealed that hearings from two other days, before and after the bail hearing, had also not been recorded. This absence of records raised significant concerns about potential judicial misconduct and the broader implications of replacing human court reporters with electronic recording devices. Just a year prior, Waukesha County had removed court reporters from their courtrooms, despite warnings from the Wisconsin Court Reporters Association about the risks associated with electronic recording systems. Court reporters, often referred to as “Guardians of the Record,” provide a decentralized and highly secure method of preserving court transcripts. Each reporter independently maintains multiple backups of their records, ensuring that they cannot be easily tampered with or lost.

When Waukesha County transitioned to electronic recording systems, the responsibility for maintaining the court record shifted from independent court reporters to the court itself—a move that introduced a glaring conflict of interest. If the court is responsible for preserving records that may later be used to hold it accountable, the potential for evidence tampering becomes a serious concern. In Brooks’ case, Milwaukee County Chief Judge Mary Triggiano attributed the missing recordings to “human error” or “technical malfunction,” an explanation that many found insufficient given the high stakes of the case.

Had the records been available, they could have provided crucial evidence in potential wrongful death lawsuits brought by the families of the victims. Wrongful death settlements can range from modest sums to tens of millions of dollars per victim. With six victims in this case, Waukesha County could have faced settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars—an outcome that may have been financially devastating for the county. The missing transcript of the bail hearing, which could have demonstrated negligence in setting Brooks’ bail, was therefore a highly consequential omission.

Given the significant implications, many observers suspect that the missing recordings were not the result of simple error but rather a deliberate effort to eliminate damaging evidence. If this is true, it constitutes evidence tampering, a serious crime that undermines the very foundation of the justice system. The absence of human court reporters in Waukesha County’s courtrooms allowed this potential corruption to go unchecked, highlighting the crucial role that court reporters play in maintaining judicial integrity.

This case serves as a stark warning about the dangers of removing human oversight from the judicial process. As courts continue to explore technological alternatives to human court reporters, the risks of record tampering, evidence loss, and judicial corruption increase. The ability to accurately preserve court proceedings is not a minor administrative concern—it is a fundamental safeguard against tyranny.

If we allow our judicial system to replace human court reporters with unreliable electronic recording systems, we risk eroding the very mechanisms designed to prevent absolute corruption. The case of Darrell Brooks and the missing court records in Waukesha County is a troubling example of what happens when those in power are allowed to control and potentially manipulate the record of their own decisions. The fight to preserve human court reporters in our legal system is not just about preserving jobs—it is about ensuring that justice remains impartial, transparent, and accountable. If we fail to act, we may find ourselves slipping further toward a system where absolute power, unchecked by independent oversight, leads to absolute corruption.

How the NCRA Can Increase Its Membership and Thrive Again

The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) has long been a pillar of the legal and transcription industries, representing court reporters, captioners, and transcription professionals. However, like many professional associations, the NCRA has seen challenges in recent years, including declining membership and increased competition from alternative transcription services. To thrive again, the NCRA must take bold steps to solidify its role in the industry, increase membership, and secure the future of court reporting.

One radical approach that could redefine the profession is shifting away from proprietary certifications and instead advocating for state-mandated certification requirements. By pushing for legal recognition at the state level, the NCRA can establish stronger protections for its members, create new career pathways, and ensure the longevity of human-driven transcription services.

The Power of State Certification

A fundamental challenge facing court reporters is the lack of uniform, legally required certification across the United States. While some states have licensing requirements, many do not, allowing courts and businesses to bypass professional court reporters in favor of lower-cost alternatives, including AI-driven transcription services. If every state required certification, it would create a standardized profession with higher job security, better wages, and more recognition.

1. Legal Recognition & Job Security

State certification would create a barrier to entry that ensures only qualified professionals can work in the field. If certification were required by law, courts and other institutions would no longer be able to replace professional court reporters with uncertified transcription providers. This would lead to better job security and higher industry standards.

2. Government Support & Standardization

State-backed certification carries more weight than industry-specific credentials. Unlike a voluntary NCRA certification, a state-issued certification would come with legal authority. This would make it harder for organizations to outsource to non-certified providers and could lead to more stable wages and career growth opportunities for court reporters.

3. Membership Growth & NCRA’s New Role

By leading the charge for state certification, the NCRA would establish itself as the primary education and advocacy body for the profession. Instead of being one of several competing certification providers, the NCRA could become the go-to organization for preparing members for state exams, lobbying for standardization, and supporting continuing education requirements.

How the NCRA Can Transition to State Certification

Shifting to a state certification model will require strategic action. The NCRA must engage in legislative advocacy, industry partnerships, and a phased approach to transition successfully.

1. Lobbying for State Certification Laws

The NCRA should work directly with state legislatures to introduce laws requiring court reporters to hold state-issued certification. This involves:

  • Partnering with judicial organizations and bar associations to highlight the importance of qualified human transcriptionists in the legal system.
  • Advocating for laws that mandate certified court reporters in legal proceedings.
  • Demonstrating the risks of uncertified or automated transcription, including inaccuracies and legal misinterpretations.

2. Phasing Out Proprietary Certifications

Rather than maintaining proprietary certifications, the NCRA should gradually transition its certification programs to support state requirements.

  • Existing NCRA certifications could be used as a training foundation for new state licensing exams.
  • The NCRA could administer exams on behalf of state agencies or work as an approved testing provider.
  • The organization could focus on continuing education, exam prep, and professional development instead of serving as the primary certification body.

3. Ensuring Reciprocity Across States

A major challenge in state licensing is fragmentation—each state could create different requirements, making it difficult for professionals to move between states. To prevent this, the NCRA should advocate for reciprocity agreements, ensuring that a certification in one state is valid in others. This model is already used in professions like medicine and law, where practitioners can transfer their credentials with minimal barriers.

4. Marketing the Benefits to Members

A shift to state certification may be met with resistance from existing NCRA members who have already obtained proprietary certifications. The NCRA must clearly communicate the benefits:

  • Greater job security due to legal protection.
  • Higher earning potential as certification becomes a requirement.
  • Stronger industry recognition backed by government agencies.
  • A standardized career path with state-backed legitimacy.

Expanding Membership Benefits

Beyond advocating for state certification, the NCRA must ensure that its membership remains valuable by offering resources that support professionals at every stage of their careers.

1. Career Development & Job Placement

If state certification becomes the norm, the NCRA could serve as the central hub for job placement and career advancement. This could include:

  • An expanded job board connecting certified court reporters with employers.
  • Resume-building tools and interview coaching.
  • Specialized recruitment services for certified professionals.

2. Continuing Education & Professional Growth

To maintain state certification, court reporters may need ongoing education. The NCRA can provide:

  • Mandatory continuing education courses.
  • On-demand webinars and workshops.
  • Specialized training programs for niche industries like medical and broadcast captioning.

3. Networking & Community Building

A strong sense of community can encourage professionals to maintain membership. The NCRA should invest in:

  • Annual conferences featuring keynote speakers and workshops.
  • Virtual networking events to connect members across different regions.
  • Mentorship programs pairing new professionals with seasoned experts.

Overcoming Potential Challenges

While a transition to state certification could bring significant benefits, it will also face obstacles. The NCRA must be prepared to address potential legal, financial, and industry challenges.

1. Revenue Loss from Certification Fees

The NCRA currently generates revenue from its proprietary certifications. To offset this loss, the organization could:

  • Charge for exam prep courses and study materials.
  • Offer continuing education programs for state-certified reporters.
  • Expand advocacy efforts and operate as a membership-driven lobbying organization.

2. Resistance from Courts Used to Looser Requirements

Some courts, particularly in states without strict certification laws, may be hesitant to adopt a state-mandated model. The NCRA should:

  • Provide case studies showcasing the risks of uncertified transcription.
  • Work with judges and legal organizations to advocate for professional certification.
  • Offer state-specific training programs to help ease the transition.

3. Pushback from Alternative Transcription Providers

Companies offering automated transcription services or non-certified alternatives could resist stricter certification laws. The NCRA must:

  • Emphasize the risks of AI-driven transcription, such as inaccuracy and lack of accountability.
  • Advocate for policies that mandate human oversight in legal transcription.
  • Educate the public and legal community on the importance of certified professionals.

Conclusion: A Bold Step Toward the Future

For the NCRA to revitalize its membership and secure the future of court reporting, it must take bold and decisive action. Moving away from proprietary certifications and pushing for state-mandated certification laws would transform court reporting into a legally recognized, standardized profession with stronger protections and higher earning potential.

By leading this movement, the NCRA can reestablish itself as the industry authority, attract more members, and ensure that human court reporters remain an essential part of the legal system for generations to come.

This approach carries risks, but if executed well, it could make the NCRA more powerful and relevant than ever. The question is: Will the organization be bold enough to take the leap?

Success in Court Reporting – The Grind, The Grit, and The Breakthrough

Success isn’t for the weak. It’s for those who push past exhaustion, doubt, and pain when everything inside them is screaming to quit. If you’ve chosen the path of court reporting, you already know this is not a journey for the faint of heart. The long hours of practice, the frustration of missed words, the aching fingers from endless drills—these are all part of the process. But here’s the truth: The struggle is proof that you are on the right path.

Court reporting is a career that demands perseverance, skill, and mental endurance. Many start this journey, but only those who refuse to give up make it to the finish line. If it were easy, everyone would do it. The difficulty is what makes it worthwhile, and it’s what separates the committed from those who simply wish for success without putting in the work.

The Grind: The Daily Battle

From the moment you begin your training, you quickly realize that learning stenography is not like any other skill. It’s a language, an art, and a discipline rolled into one. The expectation isn’t just accuracy—it’s speed, efficiency, and mastery under pressure. And that takes time.

Your daily grind consists of:

  • Speed building – Pushing your fingers to move faster than your brain tells them they can.
  • Drills, drills, and more drills – Repetitive practice to develop muscle memory and accuracy.
  • Transcription practice – Learning to convert shorthand into readable transcripts at lightning speed.
  • Mental stamina exercises – Staying focused for extended periods without losing concentration.

There will be days when the progress feels painfully slow. Days when you wonder if you’ll ever get past 120 words per minute, let alone 225. But remember, every small improvement is a step forward. Each struggle is proof that you are growing.

The Grit: Overcoming the Mental Blocks

Doubt will creep in. It always does. The voice in your head will whisper that you’re not fast enough, not smart enough, not talented enough. You’ll watch classmates speed past you, and the comparison game will make you question everything.

But here’s where grit comes in. Success in court reporting isn’t about being naturally gifted. It’s about resilience. It’s about showing up every single day, even when you don’t feel like it. It’s about refusing to let frustration take over.

  • Accept that failure is part of the process – Every dropped word, every mistake is an opportunity to learn.
  • Adopt a growth mindset – Believe that with time and effort, improvement is inevitable.
  • Surround yourself with motivation – Connect with those who uplift and inspire you. Find a mentor, lean on classmates, and read stories of others who made it despite the odds.

Those who succeed in court reporting aren’t the ones who never struggled. They are the ones who pushed through when struggle seemed unbearable.

The Breakthrough: When the Impossible Becomes Possible

Here’s the thing about breakthroughs—they come when you least expect them. After months of grueling practice, when you feel like you can’t possibly keep going, something clicks. The strokes start to flow effortlessly. Your speed jumps. Accuracy improves. And suddenly, what once seemed impossible is now your new reality.

Breakthroughs happen not because you wished for them but because you earned them. Every time you resisted the urge to quit, every time you practiced for “just five more minutes,” you brought yourself closer to success.

The Moments That Matter

  • The first time you hit your target speed.
  • The moment you pass a test you once thought was too hard.
  • The day you realize you can take down words in real-time without freezing.
  • The pride of transcribing an entire conversation with perfect accuracy.

These are the moments that make the journey worth it.

Keep Going, Keep Grinding

The road to becoming a certified court reporter isn’t easy. It’s long, it’s frustrating, and at times, it feels impossible. But that’s exactly why it’s worth it. If it were easy, everyone would do it.

So, when your fingers ache, when your mind tells you it’s too hard, when you’re on the brink of giving up—keep going. Because the moment you think you can’t go any further is the moment you are closest to your breakthrough.

Success in court reporting isn’t just about skill; it’s about determination. It’s about embracing the struggle, knowing that every ounce of effort you put in today is paving the way for the incredible career that awaits you.

Push past the exhaustion. Silence the doubt. Embrace the grind. Your breakthrough is just around the corner. Keep going—you’ve got this.

The High Cost of Essential Services: What a $13,000 Ambulance Ride and Expensive Court Reporters Have in Common

In July 2023, 25-year-old Jagdish Whitten was struck by a car while jogging across a busy San Francisco street. Remarkably, after being hit, he managed to move himself to the curb. Bystanders called an ambulance, but Whitten opted to have friends drive him to the nearest hospital. After an initial evaluation, doctors decided to transfer him via ambulance to a trauma center. This second ambulance ride, covering a mere six miles, resulted in a staggering bill of nearly $13,000. To compound the issue, his insurance provider, Anthem Blue Cross, denied the claim because the transfer wasn’t pre-authorized, leaving Whitten responsible for the entire amount.

This incident highlights the pervasive issue of exorbitant and unexpected medical bills in the United States, particularly those associated with ambulance services. Patients often find themselves caught off guard by the high costs of emergency medical transportation, especially when insurance companies refuse to cover these expenses due to technicalities like lack of pre-authorization.

In a seemingly unrelated sector, California’s legal system is grappling with its own financial challenges. Court reporters, who have been indispensable in courtrooms since 1872, are facing criticism for high fees and service gaps. These professionals are responsible for creating verbatim records of legal proceedings, a task that requires specialized skills and equipment. However, the rising costs associated with their services have led to concerns about accessibility and fairness within the legal system.

Attorney Karl A. Gerber has been vocal about these issues, pointing out that the high fees and inadequate court coverage are problematic. He suggests that these challenges are pricing court reporters out of the market and potentially hindering the legal process. In response, Early Langley, a representative of the court reporters, argues that these criticisms overlook historical and systemic factors that have contributed to the current situation. Langley emphasizes the adaptability and dedication of court reporters despite these challenges.

At first glance, the exorbitant ambulance bill and the high fees charged by court reporters may seem like disparate issues. However, they both underscore a broader systemic problem: the lack of transparency and regulation in service-related industries, leading to unexpected and often unaffordable expenses for consumers.

The Common Thread: Lack of Transparency and Regulation

In both healthcare and legal services, consumers frequently face opaque pricing structures. In Whitten’s case, there was no prior indication that a short ambulance ride would result in a $13,000 bill. Similarly, individuals involved in legal proceedings may not anticipate the high costs associated with court reporting services until they receive the bill.

This lack of transparency prevents consumers from making informed decisions and leaves them vulnerable to financial strain. Without clear information about costs upfront, individuals cannot adequately prepare for or contest these charges.

The Role of Insurance and Reimbursement Policies

Insurance policies and reimbursement rates play a significant role in both scenarios. For medical services, insurance companies often have complex policies that can lead to claim denials based on technicalities, as seen with Whitten’s ambulance bill. In the legal field, court reporters’ fees may be influenced by reimbursement rates set by the courts or negotiated with law firms, which can vary widely and lack standardization.

Potential Solutions and Reforms

Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach:

  1. Enhanced Transparency: Service providers in both sectors should be required to disclose pricing information upfront. This would allow consumers to make informed choices and anticipate potential expenses.
  2. Regulatory Oversight: Implementing regulations that cap fees for essential services could prevent exorbitant charges. For instance, some states have introduced legislation to limit surprise medical billing, which could serve as a model for other industries.
  3. Insurance Reform: Insurance companies should streamline their policies to reduce claim denials based on technicalities. Simplifying the pre-authorization process and ensuring coverage for necessary services are essential steps.
  4. Stakeholder Collaboration: Engaging all stakeholders—including service providers, consumers, insurance companies, and regulators—in open dialogues can lead to more equitable solutions. Collaborative efforts can help align interests and address systemic issues effectively.

Conclusion

The cases of the $13,000 ambulance bill and the high fees charged by court reporters illuminate a critical need for systemic reform in service-related industries. By enhancing transparency, implementing regulatory oversight, reforming insurance practices, and fostering collaboration among stakeholders, we can work towards a more equitable system that protects consumers from unexpected and burdensome expenses.

Ultimately, these issues reflect broader societal challenges related to access, fairness, and accountability. Addressing them requires a commitment to systemic change and a recognition of the interconnectedness of these seemingly disparate sectors.

Don’t Let Courts Push You Into Trusting Your Life to a Tape Recorder

Technology has revolutionized many aspects of daily life, improving efficiency and convenience in ways that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago. From automating repetitive tasks to enhancing communication, technological advancements have made remarkable contributions to modern society. However, while technology is an excellent tool in many areas, there are certain functions it cannot replace—particularly when it comes to ensuring justice in a courtroom. The push to replace human court reporters with electronic recording devices is one such dangerous experiment, one that threatens the very integrity of the judicial system.

The move to replace them with electronic recording devices is a shortsighted, cost-cutting measure that jeopardizes justice. Courtrooms should never be in a position where a person’s fate hinges on the reliability of a machine. Unfortunately, this transition is already happening, and the consequences are dire.

A Tragic Mistake in the Making

A striking example of the dangers of electronic recording occurred in a case where a survivor of domestic violence was seeking a restraining order against an abusive ex-husband. This was a life-altering legal matter, one where precision and accuracy were essential. However, during the deposition, critical portions of the testimony were erased due to a technological failure. It was not until months later, deep into litigation, that the company responsible for transcribing the electronic recording admitted that approximately 50 pages of testimony had been lost. By then, the damage had already been done. The judge denied the restraining order, a decision based on an incomplete record. The mistake was irreversible, and the potential consequences were devastating.

This is not an isolated incident. Such errors are becoming more common as courts increasingly rely on flawed recording technology. Unlike trained human court reporters, machines cannot flag missing testimony, request clarification, or ensure every spoken word is captured. A simple technical malfunction, background noise, or even an operator’s oversight in turning on the recording device can permanently alter a case’s outcome.

Court Reporters The Guardians of the Record

Court reporters have long been recognized as the “guardians of the record” because their work forms the foundation of the legal system’s reliability. Unlike digital recordings, which are susceptible to failures, court reporters undergo extensive training to ensure they capture verbatim records of legal proceedings. In California, the standard for court reporter accuracy is an astonishing 97.5%—the highest in the nation. This level of precision is critical in legal proceedings where even the smallest misinterpretation can alter the course of justice.

In contrast, electronic recording technology simply cannot meet this high standard. The reasons for this are numerous:

  • Equipment Failures Technology is not infallible. Recorders can malfunction, microphones can fail to pick up voices, and files can become corrupted or lost altogether.
  • Poor Acoustics and Background Noise Courtrooms are not ideal recording environments. Overlapping conversations, ambient noise, and the natural acoustics of the room can distort recordings, making words difficult to decipher.
  • Language and Dialects Electronic recording software often struggles with regional dialects, accents, and individuals who speak English as a second language, leading to inaccurate or incomplete transcripts.
  • Gaps in the Record Even the best recording systems produce transcripts with “[inaudible]” or “[unintelligible]” notations, which can be devastating in a legal context. Worse, entire sections of proceedings can be lost without any indication that something is missing.

Even assuming perfect conditions, electronic recording systems require human transcription afterward, adding another layer of potential error. Unlike a live court reporter who can ask for clarification immediately, transcriptionists work from flawed recordings that provide no ability to correct misunderstandings in real-time.

A Disastrous Policy Driven by Cost Cutting

Despite these glaring risks, court officials are aggressively pushing for the expansion of electronic recording technology in California courtrooms. Their motivation is clear—budget cuts. By eliminating court reporters, courts hope to save money on salaries and benefits. However, this cost-saving measure comes at a steep price—the erosion of justice.

The shift to electronic recordings will only widen the justice gap. Wealthier litigants will still be able to hire private court reporters, ensuring an accurate record of their proceedings. Meanwhile, lower-income individuals will be forced to rely on unreliable electronic recordings, putting them at a distinct disadvantage. Justice should not be reserved for those who can afford it.

Solutions Ensuring Access to Accurate Court Records

Instead of replacing court reporters with flawed technology, lawmakers should explore alternative solutions to address staffing shortages and budget constraints while maintaining accuracy and fairness in the judicial system. Several viable options exist:

  1. Expanding the Court Reporter Pipeline California has a significant number of students enrolled in court reporting schools and on waiting lists. By implementing provisional licensure—similar to the approach used for attorneys—the state could fast-track qualified students into courtrooms, alleviating staffing shortages.
  2. Legislative Action – Passing AB 3013 This proposed bill would allow for the use of remote court reporting, enabling a single court reporter to cover multiple cases across different locations in a single day. This solution not only increases coverage, but also ensures accuracy without the need for unreliable recording devices.
  3. Increasing the Use of Voice Writers Voice writing technology allows trained professionals to capture the spoken word with specialized software while maintaining real-time accuracy. These professionals can provide a reliable alternative without sacrificing precision.
  4. Improving Wages and Working Conditions Rather than eliminating court reporters, courts should offer competitive salaries and flexible working conditions. Currently, freelance court reporters can earn upwards of $800 per appearance, making it difficult for the judicial system to compete for talent. Providing better incentives for court reporters to work within the system would help retain experienced professionals.

The Future of Justice Must Prioritize Accuracy

At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question—can justice be left to unreliable technology? The answer is a resounding no. Court reporters are the backbone of a functioning legal system. They provide the precise, real-time transcription that courts need to ensure fair outcomes.

Allowing electronic recording devices to replace trained professionals is a reckless decision that will lead to more errors, more appeals, and more lives disrupted by preventable injustices. Lawmakers must resist the temptation to cut costs at the expense of accuracy and fairness. The integrity of the legal system depends on it.

If flawed technology is allowed to dictate legal proceedings, the foundation of justice itself is at risk. The courts must not strip away the right to an accurate record by embracing unreliable recording systems. Justice should never be left to chance, and it certainly should not be left to a tape recorder.

The Dangers of Judges Using AI on the Bench

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the judicial system is a growing trend, with courts around the world experimenting with AI-driven tools for legal research, case analysis, and even decision-making. While AI offers the promise of increased efficiency and consistency, its use by judges on the bench introduces significant risks, including issues of accuracy, bias, transparency, and accountability. A real-life example illustrates the potential perils of judicial reliance on AI, as a judge misinterpreted AI-generated translations in a case where a human court reporter got it right. This incident underscores the need for caution and oversight in adopting AI tools in the legal system.

Misinterpretation of AI-Generated Translations

In a recent case, a judge relied on AI-assisted translation to interpret a statement made by a witness. The statement in question was:
“I had — for 100,000, I had the credit in my account. And for $230,000, I took over the X note.”

However, the judge initially misheard or misinterpreted the AI-assisted translation, believing the witness said “four hundred thousand” instead of “one hundred thousand.” When the discrepancy arose, the court turned to the human court reporter for clarification, and the correct translation was confirmed. The AI’s misinterpretation could have led to significant legal consequences, illustrating the dangers of over-reliance on automated tools in a judicial setting.

The Risks of AI Misinterpretation in Courtrooms

  1. Loss of Accuracy in Legal Proceedings
    AI, while powerful, is not infallible. It operates on probabilistic models that predict the most likely interpretation of data rather than guaranteeing accuracy. In legal settings, minor translation errors or misinterpretations can drastically alter the meaning of statements, potentially leading to unjust rulings. Judges who rely on AI for language translation, legal analysis, or even sentencing recommendations risk making decisions based on faulty data.
  2. Erosion of Judicial Discretion
    Judges are expected to exercise discretion based on legal reasoning, human empathy, and nuanced understanding of cases. When AI tools become central to decision-making, judges may defer too much authority to technology, undermining their own expertise. AI’s lack of human judgment, ethical consideration, and contextual awareness makes it a poor substitute for experienced judicial reasoning.
  3. Bias and Fairness Issues
    AI systems are trained on historical data, which often includes embedded biases. Studies have shown that AI-driven legal tools can exhibit racial, gender, and socio-economic biases, leading to unfair outcomes. For example, predictive sentencing AI tools have been criticized for disproportionately recommending harsher sentences for minority defendants. If judges rely on these flawed systems, the risk of institutionalized bias increases rather than decreases.
  4. Lack of Transparency and Accountability
    AI models operate as “black boxes,” meaning their decision-making processes are often opaque. When a judge relies on AI-generated recommendations, it becomes difficult to determine how or why a particular conclusion was reached. This lack of transparency undermines the fundamental legal principle that rulings must be reasoned, justifiable, and open to scrutiny.
  5. Over-Reliance on Automation in High-Stakes Decisions
    Legal cases often involve complex human dynamics that AI cannot fully comprehend. From witness credibility assessments to emotional nuances in testimony, human judges are uniquely capable of interpreting context in ways AI cannot. Over-reliance on AI risks reducing legal proceedings to formulaic, mechanical processes that lack the depth required for true justice.

The Need for Caution and Oversight

To mitigate these risks, several measures must be implemented:

  • AI as an Assistive, Not Decisive, Tool: AI should support judicial functions rather than replace human decision-making. Judges must remain the ultimate arbiters in court cases.
  • Rigorous Accuracy Testing: AI translation and legal analysis tools must undergo extensive accuracy validation before being used in courtrooms.
  • Judicial Training on AI Limitations: Judges must be trained on AI’s capabilities and shortcomings, ensuring they do not over-rely on automated outputs.
  • Human Oversight in AI Use: AI-assisted translations or legal recommendations should always be verified by human experts, such as certified translators or legal analysts.
  • Ethical and Legal Guidelines: Governments and judicial bodies must establish clear ethical and legal guidelines for AI use in the courtroom to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Conclusion

While AI holds significant potential for streamlining legal processes, its use on the bench carries substantial risks. The misinterpretation of AI-generated translations in the recent courtroom example highlights the dangers of relying on automated systems without sufficient oversight. To ensure justice remains fair and accurate, judges must use AI cautiously, balancing technological assistance with human expertise. The legal system must prioritize transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations when integrating AI into judicial decision-making, ensuring that technology serves justice rather than undermines it.

Why AI in Microsoft Teams Meetings Could Be Bad News for Court Reporters

In an age of rapid technological advancement, artificial intelligence (AI) is making significant strides in various industries, with the workplace being no exception. Microsoft Teams, a leading platform for remote collaboration, has been steadily integrating AI to improve user experience, enhance productivity, and streamline processes. While these AI features offer undeniable benefits for many professionals, they raise concerns for certain sectors—particularly the court reporting industry.

Court reporters play a critical role in documenting legal proceedings, ensuring that the spoken word is accurately captured and transcribed for future reference. With the rise of AI technologies like speech-to-text transcription, real-time translation, and virtual assistants, there is increasing worry that court reporters could face significant challenges. The integration of AI in Microsoft Teams meetings presents a future where these professionals may be at risk of being replaced or their roles diminished.

In this article, we will explore why the increasing use of AI in Microsoft Teams meetings could pose a threat to court reporters and the potential consequences of this shift.

The Threat of AI Transcription Technology

At the heart of the concern is the development of AI-driven transcription technology. Microsoft Teams has begun incorporating AI features like real-time transcription of meetings, automatically converting speech into written text. While this technology is designed to improve efficiency and accessibility in virtual meetings, it threatens to reduce the demand for human court reporters, who are currently responsible for transcribing legal proceedings.

Court reporters undergo extensive training to ensure that they can accurately capture every word spoken in a courtroom, regardless of the speed, accents, or complex legal terminology involved. AI transcription tools, although impressive in their capabilities, are still not perfect. While they may work well in controlled environments like corporate meetings, the dynamic and high-stakes nature of courtrooms presents unique challenges.

Unlike AI, court reporters have the ability to interpret context, recognize the subtleties of speech (e.g., when multiple people speak over one another), and understand the intricacies of legal jargon. Court reporters can also address ambiguities in language and clarify moments of uncertainty, something that current AI systems struggle with. Inaccurate transcriptions in the legal context can have serious consequences, from misunderstandings to flawed legal decisions.

AI-powered transcription systems are far from flawless, especially when it comes to accurately transcribing complex legal proceedings. If Microsoft Teams and other platforms expand their AI transcription capabilities, there could be a decreased reliance on skilled court reporters, particularly for cases involving less intricate proceedings. As AI becomes more advanced, it could eventually encroach on areas traditionally dominated by human transcribers, such as depositions, hearings, and even some courtroom environments.

The Decline of Job Opportunities for Court Reporters

As AI continues to improve, there is a growing concern that court reporters could face job displacement or reduced opportunities in the job market. While AI transcription systems may be able to assist with routine meetings and smaller legal proceedings, larger and more high-profile cases, such as criminal trials or complex civil litigation, still require human precision and judgment.

If AI technologies become mainstream in legal proceedings, court reporters may find it increasingly difficult to secure work. This is particularly worrying for freelance court reporters who rely on consistent work in the legal sector. If law firms, courts, and other legal institutions adopt AI-driven transcription solutions as a cost-saving measure, freelance reporters may see a significant reduction in demand for their services.

For those employed as court reporters, their roles may be diminished as AI systems take over basic transcription tasks. Although there will still be a need for human oversight, especially in ensuring the accuracy of transcripts, there is a real possibility that fewer court reporters will be required in day-to-day operations. This shift could lead to job losses and a shrinking market for skilled transcription professionals.

Ethical and Legal Concerns Surrounding AI Transcription

The potential for AI to take over the transcription of legal proceedings raises important ethical and legal questions. While AI systems can be highly efficient, they still face significant challenges in providing full accuracy, particularly when it comes to complex language, multiple speakers, and specialized legal terminology.

In legal contexts, even minor errors or omissions in a transcript can have serious consequences. Court reporters are trained to catch every nuance and subtlety, ensuring that a complete and accurate record of proceedings is created. AI systems, on the other hand, may miss key information or misinterpret what was said, especially when it comes to heavily accented speech, poor audio quality, or overlapping dialogue.

Moreover, AI transcription systems rely on vast amounts of data to function, and there is a risk that this data could be mishandled, leading to privacy violations or breaches of confidentiality. Legal proceedings often involve sensitive information, and the use of AI tools to transcribe such content could compromise client confidentiality or the integrity of the legal process.

Additionally, while AI can help streamline processes and reduce costs, the technology could inadvertently introduce errors that have serious ramifications. Unlike court reporters, who can immediately clarify discrepancies and ensure the accuracy of their work, AI transcription tools may not be able to correct their mistakes in real-time, potentially affecting the final transcript.

Impact on Quality Control and Accountability

AI transcription systems, while efficient, lack the human touch required for thorough quality control. Court reporters are not just transcribing; they are constantly making judgment calls, clarifying words or phrases, and ensuring that the record is both accurate and complete. AI, while improving, lacks this level of understanding and adaptability.

In the legal profession, accountability is paramount. Court reporters are held to high standards of accuracy, and their transcripts are legally binding. If AI-driven systems take over transcription duties, questions will arise about who is responsible for errors or inaccuracies in the transcripts. Can an AI system be held accountable for a mistake, or will the responsibility fall on the legal professionals using the technology?

Moreover, AI systems are still largely “black boxes,” meaning they often operate without clear explanations of how they make decisions. This lack of transparency can be problematic in legal proceedings, where the integrity of the process must be above reproach. Court reporters, on the other hand, can provide explanations for how they arrived at a certain transcription, offering a level of accountability that AI cannot yet match.

The Need for Human Expertise in Court Reporting

Despite the advancements in AI, the need for human expertise in court reporting remains vital. Court reporters bring a unique skill set to the table—one that AI has not yet been able to replicate. In addition to transcribing spoken words, they are trained to capture the tone, emotions, and context of legal proceedings, which can be crucial for understanding the full picture of what transpired.

While AI can assist with certain tasks, it cannot replace the human judgment, expertise, and professionalism that court reporters bring to the table. The legal industry will continue to require highly trained professionals who can ensure the integrity and accuracy of legal records.

Conclusion: Navigating the Future of Court Reporting in an AI-Driven World

The integration of AI into platforms like Microsoft Teams is undoubtedly transforming the workplace, offering improved efficiency and enhanced functionality. However, for court reporters, the growing reliance on AI-driven transcription tools presents a significant threat. While AI may improve accessibility and convenience, it risks undermining the role of human court reporters, potentially leading to job losses and a decline in the quality of legal records.

As the legal industry continues to embrace AI, it is crucial to consider the long-term implications for court reporters and the essential services they provide. While AI may augment certain aspects of transcription, it cannot replace the expertise, judgment, and accuracy that human professionals bring to the table. For court reporters, the key to thriving in an AI-driven future lies in adapting to new technologies while maintaining their unique role in the legal process.

Ultimately, the future of court reporting in an AI-powered world will depend on how both the legal and technology sectors balance innovation with the need for human expertise. As AI continues to evolve, court reporters must be prepared to adapt and find ways to leverage the technology to enhance their work rather than replace it.

AI and Digital Technology in Court Reporting: Not the Revolution It Was Thought to Be

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies has been heralded as a transformative force in various industries, from healthcare to finance. Court reporting, a critical but often overlooked profession, was expected to be one of the fields where AI-driven transcription tools and digital reporting systems would bring efficiency, accuracy, and cost savings. However, the reality has been starkly different. Much like the findings from a recent Pew Research Center survey on AI in the workplace, the use of AI in court reporting has been met with skepticism, underwhelming adoption, and unintended consequences that have left many professionals questioning its true impact.

The Initial Hype: A Promise of Efficiency and Accuracy

When AI-powered transcription and digital recording tools first entered the court reporting scene, proponents claimed that these technologies would revolutionize the industry. Companies developing AI-based transcription services marketed their software as being capable of real-time speech-to-text conversion, eliminating the need for human stenographers. These tools were expected to reduce costs, expedite legal proceedings, and make court reporting more accessible to jurisdictions struggling with stenographer shortages.

In theory, digital reporting systems and AI transcription software promised to:

  • Provide near-instant transcripts of court proceedings.
  • Reduce human error and increase accuracy.
  • Cut down on the expenses associated with traditional stenography.
  • Address the growing shortage of court reporters by filling gaps where human resources were lacking.

The Reality: AI Falls Short in Court Reporting

Despite these lofty promises, the practical implementation of AI in court reporting has been fraught with issues, leading to a workforce that remains largely skeptical of the technology’s effectiveness.

1. Accuracy Issues and Misinterpretation

One of the biggest challenges AI transcription tools face in court reporting is accuracy. Legal proceedings involve complex terminology, various accents, multiple speakers talking over one another, and industry-specific jargon that AI struggles to interpret correctly. While AI has made strides in natural language processing, it still falls short of matching the precision and contextual understanding of trained human court reporters.

Errors in transcriptions are not just minor inconveniences; they can have serious legal implications. A misinterpretation of testimony, a misattribution of a statement, or an omission of key legal terms can significantly impact case outcomes. Unlike casual conversations or simple dictations, court proceedings demand near-perfect transcription, something AI has yet to consistently deliver.

2. Lack of Adaptability to Legal Nuances

Court reporters do more than just transcribe words; they understand the nuances of legal language, recognize when a judge or attorney wants something clarified, and can request repetitions when needed. AI lacks this level of contextual awareness. Automated transcription tools may record words verbatim, but they cannot flag potential ambiguities or confirm legal terminology with attorneys on the spot.

3. AI and the Issue of Trust in Legal Proceedings

Legal professionals, including judges and attorneys, must trust the accuracy and confidentiality of court records. AI-driven tools, many of which rely on cloud-based servers for processing, have raised concerns about data security and the integrity of legal records. Courts handle sensitive information, and storing transcripts on external servers introduces risks of breaches or unauthorized access, leading to hesitation in fully adopting these systems.

4. Resistance from Court Reporters and Legal Professionals

Just as the Pew Research Center found that many American workers are either indifferent or concerned about AI’s role in the workplace, court reporters have expressed deep reservations about AI replacing human expertise. Many experienced stenographers argue that digital and AI-powered systems do not meet the profession’s high standards and could ultimately degrade the quality of legal records. Additionally, the fear of job displacement looms large, with AI seen as a potential justification for cost-cutting measures that could lead to layoffs.

The Role of Power Dynamics in AI Adoption

The skepticism surrounding AI in court reporting is not merely about technological shortcomings—it also reflects the broader concerns about workplace power dynamics. As noted in the recent Pew study, workers who have control over their working conditions, such as independent professionals, are more likely to see AI as a helpful tool. Conversely, those in structured employment settings, such as court reporters working within judicial systems, may feel that AI adoption is imposed upon them without their input, leading to greater resistance.

In many cases, AI-driven transcription services are being pushed by administrative decision-makers, rather than the court reporters themselves. The top-down approach has created an environment where the professionals who actually use the technology on a daily basis feel disconnected from its development and implementation.

The Future of AI in Court Reporting: A Complement, Not a Replacement

Despite the challenges, AI and digital technology are not entirely without merit in court reporting. When used correctly, AI can serve as a valuable tool to enhance, rather than replace, human expertise. The future of AI in court reporting may lie in hybrid models where AI assists stenographers, rather than attempts to replace them outright. There is one CAT software vendor which has spent the past decade perfecting just such a thing: Advantage Software, who makes Eclipse for court reporters.

Potential Ways AI Can Assist Court Reporters:

  • Real-time Assistance: AI could help stenographers by providing real-time suggestions or flagging areas of transcripts that may require human review.
  • Filling the Gaps in Low-Resource Areas: In jurisdictions struggling with court reporter shortages, AI-assisted digital reporting may help provide temporary solutions while still requiring human oversight.
  • Speeding Up Transcript Delivery: AI can be used to generate rough drafts of transcripts that stenographers can then refine and finalize, speeding up the overall process.

Conclusion: AI’s Role Needs to Be Reassessed

The expectations for AI in court reporting have not matched reality. While AI transcription tools have made some advancements, they continue to fall short in terms of accuracy, contextual awareness, and adaptability to legal language. Just as the Pew Research study found widespread skepticism about AI in the broader workforce, court reporters and legal professionals remain cautious about fully embracing AI in their field.

Rather than replacing human stenographers, AI should be viewed as an augmentative tool—one that enhances productivity without compromising the accuracy and reliability of court records. The legal system relies on precision and trust, and until AI can consistently meet these standards, human court reporters will remain indispensable.

For AI to truly benefit the court reporting industry, it must be developed in collaboration with those who understand the profession best. Without this, AI will continue to be seen not as a revolutionary force, but as an inadequate substitute for human expertise in one of the most critical functions of the judicial system.

The California Supreme Court to Hear Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts: A Pivotal Moment for Court Reporting

Last Wednesday, the California Supreme Court made a significant decision to hear the case of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts, a case that carries substantial implications for the future of court reporting in the state. This lawsuit alleges that several county superior courts—including those in Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara—are failing to provide an accurate and verbatim record of proceedings by not permitting electronic recording for indigent litigants. This case raises crucial questions about access to justice, court transparency, and the role of licensed court reporters in safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.

The Background of the Case

As noted in a December update, the plaintiffs argue that electronic recording should be permitted to ensure an accurate record of legal proceedings for individuals who cannot afford the services of a licensed court reporter. In response, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and local court reporting associations from Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara Counties have filed an amicus brief, opposing the expansion of electronic recording.

In its February 19 order, the Supreme Court mandated that the Respondents and the Legislature provide justification within 60 days as to why the requested relief—effectively a large-scale expansion of electronic recording—should not be granted. This sets the stage for a legal battle with potential ramifications for court operations across California.

The Core Issues at Stake

The dispute at the heart of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts reflects a long-standing debate over the reliability and accuracy of electronic recordings versus live court reporters. Court reporters, who are licensed professionals trained to capture every word spoken in a courtroom, play a crucial role in preserving an unassailable record. Electronic recording, while useful in some settings, has frequently been criticized for its inability to provide a fully accurate and reliable record, often containing omissions, inaudible sections, and other errors that can compromise the fairness of judicial proceedings.

The case also brings into focus the broader issue of court administration and resource allocation. The courts in question have long faced scrutiny for their handling of court reporter staffing. Over the years, courts have reduced court reporter positions through layoffs, retirement buyouts, and refusals to fill vacant positions. Despite legislative efforts to bolster court reporting—such as allocating millions of dollars to fund recruitment and retention—some courts have returned these funds rather than hiring the necessary personnel. This mismanagement has contributed to the current crisis, in which litigants, particularly those from marginalized communities, are left without reliable court records.

Legislative Efforts and Judicial Resistance

The California Legislature has taken proactive steps to address the court reporter shortage. By authorizing the licensing of voice writers and allocating significant funding for recruitment, lawmakers have ensured that the number of certified shorthand reporters has increased dramatically in recent years. Court reporting schools now have waiting lists, and the profession is experiencing renewed interest.

Despite these efforts, some judges have chosen to disregard legislative intent by reducing the presence of court reporters in their courtrooms. This judicial resistance threatens to undermine the legal protections established to ensure litigants have access to an accurate record of their proceedings. The judiciary’s reluctance to embrace legislative measures raises concerns about the separation of powers and whether courts should be permitted to circumvent laws designed to protect due process rights.

The Risks of Electronic Recording

Those advocating against the expansion of electronic recording emphasize its numerous shortcomings. Unlike a licensed court reporter, who ensures clarity and accuracy in transcribing legal proceedings, electronic recording systems are prone to a variety of issues, including:

  • Technical Failures: Recording equipment malfunctions can result in missing testimony or distorted audio.
  • Inaudible Sections: Background noise, overlapping speech, and poor microphone placement can make portions of the record unintelligible.
  • Lack of Real-Time Certification: Court reporters can immediately clarify testimony and provide real-time transcription, whereas recordings require later review, which increases the likelihood of errors and omissions.
  • Editing and Manipulation Risks: Unlike certified transcripts prepared by a court reporter, electronic recordings are vulnerable to tampering or disputes over authenticity.

Given the high stakes in family law and domestic violence cases—where custody, safety, and fundamental rights are often at issue—ensuring a flawless record is essential. Courts cannot afford to compromise on accuracy when justice and liberty are on the line.

A Multi-Tiered System of Justice?

The controversy surrounding this case also underscores concerns about a potential two-tiered justice system. Wealthier litigants can afford court reporters, ensuring that their cases are recorded with precision, while indigent litigants might be forced to rely on flawed electronic recordings. This disparity threatens the principle of equal justice under the law and raises constitutional concerns about access to due process.

Notably, some counties have taken proactive measures to ensure that all litigants have access to professional court reporters. For example, Orange County Superior Court has successfully retained a full staff of court reporters. Similarly, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have initiated paid internship programs to attract new reporters. These examples demonstrate that a commitment to properly staffing courtrooms with professional reporters is both feasible and effective.

The Path Forward

The outcome of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts will have lasting consequences for the California judiciary and the broader legal system. Advocates for court reporters argue that the law is on their side and that a ruling in favor of electronic recording could set a dangerous precedent. With a decision from the Supreme Court pending, the legal community must remain engaged in this critical discussion.

In the meantime, the CCRA is urging court reporters, legal professionals, and concerned citizens to stay informed and involved. At the end of next month, CCRA will host the Legislative Empowerment & Advocacy Development program, which will provide training on effective legislative advocacy, including letter-writing campaigns, direct engagement with lawmakers, and testifying in Sacramento.

As this case unfolds, the legal community must ensure that the voices of court reporters and litigants alike are heard. The integrity of California’s judicial system depends on a fair, accurate, and accessible record for all, and the fight to uphold this standard is far from over.

The Case Against Electronic Recording: Protecting the Integrity of the Judicial Record

The California Supreme Court is currently considering the case of Family Violence Appellate Project et al. v. Superior Courts of California, Case No. S288176, a case that has sparked a contentious debate over the use of electronic recordings in courtrooms. The California Lawyers Association (CLA) has filed an amicus curiae letter supporting the petitioners, arguing that the use of electronic recording is essential to maintaining a reliable record of oral proceedings. However, as court reporters, we must strongly oppose this position. Court reporters are the gold standard for preserving the judicial record, and replacing them with electronic recording technology would significantly undermine the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of court proceedings.

I. The Unparalleled Accuracy of Certified Court Reporters

The petitioners argue that electronic recordings can serve as a suitable replacement for live court reporters, but this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Court reporters provide real-time, human verification of spoken words, ensuring that transcripts are precise and comprehensive. Unlike electronic recordings, court reporters can:

  1. Clarify Ambiguous Speech: Court reporters can ask speakers to repeat themselves, clarify mumbled speech, or verify unclear legal terminology.
  2. Exclude Extraneous Noise: Courtrooms are filled with overlapping conversations, background noise, and interruptions. Court reporters are trained to filter out irrelevant noise while capturing essential dialogue.
  3. Provide Immediate Readbacks: Judges and attorneys frequently request readbacks during trials. Court reporters can instantly locate and provide verbatim excerpts from prior testimony.
  4. Ensure a Complete Record: Court reporters actively work to ensure that no testimony is lost due to technical failures, inaudible speech, or simultaneous talking—problems that plague electronic recordings.

II. The Inherent Failures of Electronic Recording Systems

The petitioners claim that electronic recording offers a viable alternative to court reporters, but real-world experience demonstrates otherwise. Electronic recording is fraught with technical and procedural issues, including:

  1. Audio Quality Issues: Courtrooms are unpredictable environments. Microphones often fail to pick up soft-spoken witnesses, individuals speaking with heavy accents, or multiple people talking at once.
  2. Equipment Malfunctions: Recordings are prone to technical failures, including power outages, software glitches, and corrupted files. Once lost, the record cannot be reconstructed.
  3. Difficulties in Transcription: Even when recordings are successfully captured, the process of transcribing them is arduous. Transcribers working from recordings often struggle with inaudible segments, homophones, and unclear speech patterns, leading to inaccuracies.
  4. Lack of Immediate Access: Unlike court reporters, electronic recording systems cannot provide on-the-spot readbacks, forcing courts to delay proceedings while waiting for transcription.

III. The Financial Burden of Electronic Recording is Misleading

A key argument in favor of electronic recording is cost reduction. Proponents claim that hiring court reporters is expensive, while electronic recording systems provide a cheaper alternative. This argument is misleading for several reasons:

  1. Upfront and Maintenance Costs: Implementing and maintaining electronic recording systems require significant investments in high-quality audio equipment, storage, IT personnel, and periodic software updates.
  2. Increased Costs of Transcription Services: Courts would still need human transcribers to convert audio recordings into official transcripts. The time-consuming nature of transcribing audio often results in higher costs compared to having a live stenographic reporter.
  3. Risk of Retrying Cases Due to Faulty Records: Inaccurate or missing records can lead to appeals, retrials, and increased litigation costs. Courts may ultimately spend more rectifying recording issues than they would by employing certified court reporters.

IV. Electronic Recording Threatens Access to Justice

The CLA claims that prohibiting electronic recording disproportionately harms litigants who cannot afford private court reporters. However, electronic recording poses an even greater risk to access to justice. Low-income litigants, self-represented individuals, and non-native English speakers are particularly vulnerable to the pitfalls of electronic recording. Without a court reporter ensuring a clear and complete record, these individuals may find their testimonies lost or inaccurately transcribed, leading to unfair rulings.

Moreover, the complexities of obtaining a settled or agreed statement, as suggested by the petitioners, are beyond the capacity of most self-represented litigants. Unlike a certified transcript from a court reporter, settled statements are subject to disputes, delays, and judicial discretion, making them an unreliable alternative for those seeking appellate review.

V. Protecting the Constitutional Role of Court Reporters

California’s prohibition on electronic recording in unlimited civil, family, and probate proceedings exists for good reason. The judiciary has a constitutional responsibility to ensure accurate and reliable records of proceedings. If the Supreme Court were to overturn this prohibition, it would undermine the very foundation of appellate review and weaken the credibility of court records. Without certified court reporters, appellate courts would struggle to review cases effectively, increasing the likelihood of judicial errors and miscarriages of justice.

Conclusion: Preserving the Gold Standard in Court Reporting

The argument that electronic recording is a necessary response to a shortage of court reporters is a false dilemma. Instead of replacing court reporters with unreliable technology, the state should invest in recruitment, training, and incentives to ensure that California courts have an adequate number of professional reporters. The court reporting profession is evolving, with advancements in real-time transcription voice writing augmenting traditional stenography. These innovations should be embraced, rather than discarded in favor of inferior recording technology.

For the sake of judicial integrity, fairness, and accuracy, the California Supreme Court must reject any attempt to replace certified court reporters with electronic recording. The preservation of the official record is too critical to be entrusted to machines. The courts and the public deserve nothing less than the gold standard of court reporting.

The Best Teacher? Your Mistakes.

Theory gives you knowledge.
Practice builds your skills.
But mistakes? They teach you lessons you’ll never forget.

The fastest way to grow is to embrace failure as part of the process. Every misstep is an opportunity to refine, adapt, and improve. Instead of fearing mistakes, use them as stepping stones toward mastery.

The Role of Mistakes in Court Reporting

Court reporting is a profession that demands accuracy, speed, and resilience. It is not just about transcribing words but capturing the essence of proceedings with precision. While training to become a court reporter, students encounter numerous challenges, from unfamiliar legal terminology to complex testimony riddled with accents, mumbling, or rapid speech. Mistakes are inevitable, but they are also the foundation of growth.

A missed word, an incorrect stroke, or a misinterpreted phrase might seem like setbacks, but they provide invaluable learning experiences. Every error highlights areas that require attention and improvement. Instead of seeing mistakes as failures, court reporters and students should view them as feedback mechanisms essential for progress.

Why Mistakes Are Powerful Teachers

1. They Reveal Weaknesses

Until you make an error, you may not realize the gaps in your knowledge or skills. When a mistake occurs, it pinpoints precisely where you need to focus. Whether it’s a struggle with homophones, misstrokes, or hesitation with legal jargon, recognizing your weaknesses allows you to correct them efficiently.

2. They Build Resilience

Court reporting is not for the faint of heart. The ability to bounce back from errors separates proficient reporters from those who struggle. Learning from mistakes teaches perseverance. You begin to develop a mindset where you welcome constructive criticism and use it to fuel your growth instead of allowing setbacks to discourage you.

3. They Improve Muscle Memory

Stenographic writing relies heavily on muscle memory. When you make an error, correcting it repeatedly reinforces the proper stroke pattern, ensuring that your hands instinctively move the right way in future situations. The more you practice fixing mistakes, the stronger your skills become.

4. They Enhance Critical Thinking

When you analyze your errors, you engage in critical thinking. Why did you make that mistake? Was it due to speed, a lapse in concentration, or unfamiliarity with the material? Digging into the root cause of mistakes encourages problem-solving and strategic adjustments.

5. They Teach You to Manage Pressure

In real-world court reporting, mistakes happen even to seasoned professionals. How you handle them is what matters. By making and addressing mistakes in training, you develop the ability to remain calm under pressure. This skill is crucial during high-stakes proceedings where there is no room for panic.

Embracing Mistakes as a Court Reporting Student

Court reporting students often feel immense pressure to be perfect. However, perfection is not a starting point—it is a product of continuous learning. The best approach is to embrace mistakes early in the learning process.

Keep a Mistake Log

Maintaining a record of your most frequent errors can help you identify patterns. Are you struggling with certain words? Do you hesitate with numbers? By tracking your mistakes, you create a personalized roadmap for improvement.

Seek Feedback

Constructive criticism from instructors and mentors is invaluable. Instead of feeling disheartened, use their insights to refine your skills. Instructors can point out errors you may not have noticed and provide techniques to overcome them.

Slow Down to Speed Up

Many students make mistakes because they focus too much on speed rather than accuracy. It is better to write slower and with precision before gradually increasing speed. Speed naturally develops over time, but correcting bad habits is much harder once they become ingrained.

Use Mistakes to Strengthen Your Dictionary

Court reporters rely on their personal dictionaries in CAT (Computer-Aided Transcription) software. When you misstroke or misdefine a word, take the time to correct and refine your dictionary. Each correction improves the accuracy of your translations moving forward.

Develop a Growth Mindset

Instead of thinking, “I failed,” shift your mindset to, “I learned.” A growth mindset acknowledges that mistakes are part of the learning process and that improvement is always possible with effort and dedication.

Mistakes in the Professional Court Reporting World

Even after becoming a certified court reporter, mistakes still happen. The key is to handle them professionally and use them as opportunities for refinement.

Proofreading Is Your Best Friend

No matter how experienced you are, always review your transcripts. Proofreading allows you to catch and correct errors before submitting your final work. Many court reporters also use scopists and proofreaders as additional safety nets.

Continuous Education and Training

The legal field is constantly evolving, and court reporters must keep up. Continuing education courses, workshops, and real-world practice help sharpen skills and reduce the likelihood of errors.

Embrace Technology

Modern court reporters have access to the internet, advanced CAT software tools, and audio synchronization. Utilizing technology effectively can help minimize errors and improve the quality of transcripts.

Learn from Your Peers

Sharing experiences with fellow court reporters can be a great way to learn from each other’s mistakes. Networking groups and professional organizations offer valuable insights and practical solutions to common challenges.

Conclusion: Mistakes Are Not the End—They Are the Beginning

Every mistake is a lesson in disguise. In court reporting, where accuracy and speed are paramount, errors serve as stepping stones to mastery. Instead of fearing them, embrace them. Let them guide your learning, refine your skills, and make you a stronger, more confident reporter.

The best court reporters are not those who never make mistakes; they are the ones who learn from them, adapt, and continually strive for excellence. So the next time you find yourself frustrated by an error, remember: it’s just another step toward becoming the best court reporter you can be.