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.

The War Against Women in the Courts: How Judges Are Targeting Female Court Reporters

In an era where women have fought tirelessly for equality and economic independence, one profession remains a stronghold of female dominance: court reporting. A staggering 90%+ of court reporters are women, and they play a crucial role in the justice system by producing accurate, verbatim transcripts of legal proceedings. However, judges and court administrators are increasingly working to eliminate this profession, not due to inefficiency or obsolescence, but because these women earn a wage that rivals—or even surpasses—that of the very judges they serve. The result is a coordinated effort to replace them with electronic recording technology, threatening not only the livelihoods of thousands of women but also the integrity of the legal system itself.

The Backbone of the Legal System

Court reporters are the unsung heroes of the courtroom. Their work ensures that every spoken word in a trial, deposition, or hearing is preserved with unmatched accuracy. These transcripts serve as the official record, protecting the rights of defendants, victims, and attorneys alike. Unlike automated recording systems, which are prone to malfunctions, misinterpretations, and inaudible gaps, human court reporters provide real-time transcription, immediate clarifications, and corrections when necessary. Their skill and expertise are irreplaceable, yet the judiciary seems determined to phase them out.

The Economic Factor: Resentment from the Bench

One of the primary reasons judges and court administrators are eager to replace court reporters is economic. Many court reporters, through their specialized skill set and ability to take on freelance work, can earn six-figure salaries. Meanwhile, judges, who often hold law degrees and wield significant power, find themselves making comparable or even lower salaries. This has bred resentment among certain judges who believe that these women should not be earning as much—or more—than they do.

Instead of acknowledging the value that court reporters bring to the judicial process, some judges have resorted to dismantling the profession, lobbying for electronic recording systems under the guise of modernization and cost-cutting. However, these systems are not only unreliable but often end up costing more in the long run due to technical failures and the need for extensive post-recording transcription by human workers.

The Flaws of Electronic Recording

Electronic recording is being touted as a cost-saving measure, but the reality is far different. These systems are plagued with problems, including:

  • Poor Audio Quality: Background noise, overlapping speech, and heavy accents make recordings difficult to understand.
  • Equipment Failures: Malfunctions can result in missing testimony, jeopardizing entire cases.
  • Lack of Immediate Clarifications: Unlike a live court reporter, a machine cannot ask a witness to repeat a statement or clarify a mumble.
  • Delayed Transcripts: Instead of real-time transcripts, audio recordings must be transcribed later, often by underpaid workers with less expertise, leading to errors and inconsistencies.

Despite these issues, courts across the country are moving forward with the implementation of electronic recording, seemingly unconcerned with the accuracy and reliability of the judicial record. The result? Appeals based on inaccurate transcripts, delays in justice, and a decline in overall courtroom efficiency.

Who Benefits from This Change?

If electronic recording systems are so flawed, why are judges and court administrators pushing for them? The answer lies in power and control. Judges who push for automation are effectively eliminating a highly paid, independent profession dominated by women and replacing it with a system they can oversee directly. By removing court reporters, they not only reduce the number of women earning substantial wages but also create a power structure where the accuracy of court records is dictated by technology they control rather than by trained professionals.

Moreover, private companies that manufacture and service electronic recording equipment stand to profit enormously from this shift. The transition from human court reporters to machines is not about efficiency or cost—it is about redistributing financial resources from skilled women to corporate interests and government budgets.

The Impact on Women

The push to replace court reporters disproportionately affects women, as they make up nearly the entire workforce in this field. These are women who have spent years training and honing their skills, often investing tens of thousands of dollars in specialized education. Many are single mothers or primary breadwinners who depend on their income to support their families. By phasing out this profession, the courts are effectively stripping thousands of women of their financial independence and forcing them into lower-paying, less secure jobs.

This is not just a fight for jobs—it is a fight for women’s economic autonomy. The judiciary, which should be upholding fairness and equality, is instead engaging in systemic economic discrimination, reinforcing outdated gender norms that undervalue women’s labor and professional achievements.

The Resistance: Fighting Back Against Injustice

Fortunately, court reporters are not taking this assault on their profession lying down. Across the country, advocacy groups, professional organizations, and individual court reporters are pushing back. They are lobbying legislators, educating the public on the risks of electronic recording, and exposing the financial and ethical motivations behind the push for automation.

Several states have already seen legal challenges and legislative efforts to protect human court reporters. In some instances, judges and attorneys themselves have resisted the transition, citing concerns over transcript accuracy and procedural fairness. However, the battle is far from over.

The public must recognize the broader implications of this shift. This is not just about court reporters—it is about preserving the integrity of the judicial system and standing against systemic discrimination that seeks to undermine women in the workforce.

A Call to Action

The courts’ attack on female court reporters is a blatant attempt to devalue a profession dominated by women, not because it is outdated or inefficient, but because it allows women to earn a decent living. The push for electronic recording is driven by economic envy, corporate interests, and a desire to control the legal record. If left unchecked, this transition will not only harm thousands of women but also compromise the accuracy and fairness of the legal system itself.

It is time to fight back. Legislators, attorneys, and the public must stand with court reporters to protect their jobs and the integrity of the justice system. We must demand that our courts prioritize accuracy, fairness, and the skilled professionals who make our legal system work. The war against women in the courts is real, but with awareness and action, it is a battle that can be won.

The Silent Struggle of Court Reporters: How to Conquer Burnout and Reclaim Your Passion

As a court reporter, you’re no stranger to high expectations and relentless pressure. Your job demands precision, focus, and unwavering dedication to delivering accurate records in real-time. You spend hours in courtrooms, boardrooms, or depositions, transcribing the voices of others while keeping your own frustrations and burnout quietly at bay. It’s a challenging profession—one that often leaves you feeling overwhelmed, drained, and wondering if it’s all worth it. The weight of constant deadlines, tight schedules, and the perpetual “always on” culture can leave anyone teetering on the edge of burnout.

But here’s something you may not have realized: you don’t have to quit your job to reclaim control of your life and your career. If you’ve been thinking about walking away from court reporting, I understand why. The idea of a simple, peaceful life—away from the demands of work—may sound like an appealing escape. But before you make any drastic decisions, hear me out.

Many professionals who have reached the peak of their careers in demanding environments have faced the temptation to step away for a simpler, less stressful life. After years of hard work and dedication, the allure of peace and quiet can feel like the ultimate solution to the burnout, exhaustion, and pressure that have built up. The problem is, a life without the structure and challenges of your career can quickly lead to boredom, isolation, and a sense of loss.

The solution isn’t about abandoning your career or leaving everything behind. The solution lies in how we approach our work, how we set boundaries, and how we reconnect with our passion without sacrificing our health and well-being.

Burnout is a common experience among court reporters, and it doesn’t have to be your permanent reality. You can transform your career into something fulfilling, enjoyable, and sustainable.

Understanding Court Reporter Burnout

Burnout is not just about being tired. It’s about chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and a sense of powerlessness that builds over time. For court reporters, burnout can manifest in a number of ways:

  • Physical and Emotional Exhaustion: The constant mental strain of transcribing speech at lightning speed can leave you feeling drained, while long hours in sometimes difficult working environments can lead to physical discomfort.
  • Decreased Productivity: When burnout sets in, it becomes harder to focus and maintain the level of accuracy that is expected from you, leading to feelings of inadequacy or failure.
  • Isolation: Court reporters often work alone or in settings where they are disconnected from colleagues, leading to feelings of loneliness or disconnection from your professional community.
  • Stress and Anxiety: The pressure to meet deadlines, handle difficult cases, and ensure complete accuracy can create a stressful environment that chips away at your mental well-being.
  • Lack of Work-Life Balance: In an “always on” culture, you may feel compelled to stay available even outside working hours, making it difficult to disconnect and recharge.

But, as someone who has helped many high-achievers and professionals navigate burnout, I can tell you this: you don’t have to settle for burnout. You can learn to thrive in your profession again, without sacrificing your health or happiness. The key is in recognizing the signs, taking action, and adopting a new approach to both your work and your life.

The First Step: Recognizing the Signs of Burnout

Before you can address burnout, it’s important to recognize its signs. These can vary for each person, but common symptoms of burnout in court reporters may include:

  • Constantly feeling overwhelmed or stressed
  • Difficulty concentrating or focusing
  • Lack of motivation or enthusiasm for your work
  • Feeling emotionally drained or detached from your profession
  • Frequent physical ailments like headaches, neck pain, or back issues
  • A sense of dread about upcoming cases or deadlines

If you’ve been experiencing any of these, it’s time to take a step back and reassess your work-life balance. Burnout doesn’t happen overnight; it develops over time. Acknowledge the toll it’s taking on you, and remember: it’s not your fault. The nature of the work itself can be demanding, but it doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice your mental and physical well-being to be successful.

Step Two: Setting Boundaries That Protect Your Well-Being

In an industry where the demand is high, it can feel like you need to constantly be “on.” Court reporters are often expected to work long hours, meet impossible deadlines, and stay available at all times. But this “always on” culture is a surefire path to burnout.

One of the most effective ways to combat burnout is by setting boundaries.

Boundaries can help you protect your time, energy, and well-being. But in the court reporting world, where the demands can be high, it’s important to set nuanced boundaries that may not apply to other professions.

Here are a few boundary-setting strategies that can make a world of difference:

  • Say No (Graciously): Saying yes to every request or case that comes your way may feel like the right thing to do, but it can quickly lead to overwhelm. Practice saying no when necessary and don’t be afraid to decline cases that stretch you too thin.
  • Time Blocking: Create a schedule that includes time for breaks, relaxation, and personal activities. Ensure that your time is respected and that you’re not overcommitting to back-to-back work sessions.
  • Digital Detox: In today’s digital age, it’s easy to fall into the trap of being constantly available via email, text, or messaging apps. Set clear boundaries around when and how you’re available outside of working hours.
  • Delegate When Possible: If you have support staff or colleagues, don’t hesitate to delegate tasks that don’t require your expertise or time. It’s okay to share the load.

Setting and maintaining boundaries takes practice, but it is an essential step in preventing burnout.

Step Three: Reigniting Your Passion and Confidence

When you’re in the thick of burnout, it’s easy to lose sight of what made you passionate about court reporting in the first place. But here’s the thing: that passion is still there, and it can be reignited.

To reignite your fire, you need to reconnect with what truly drives you. Ask yourself:

  • Why did you become a court reporter in the first place?
  • What do you enjoy about the work?
  • What excites you about a challenging case?

Once you’ve identified what fuels your passion, find ways to bring those elements back into your daily routine. It could mean revisiting professional development opportunities, collaborating with like-minded colleagues, or focusing on the aspects of your work that bring you the most joy.

Additionally, combat the inner voice of self-doubt or imposter syndrome that may have crept in over time. Remind yourself of your accomplishments and the value you bring to your profession. You’ve made it this far for a reason, and it’s time to reconnect with that sense of purpose.

Step Four: Prioritizing Self-Care

Court reporters are often so focused on serving others that they forget to take care of themselves. But self-care is not a luxury—it’s a necessity.

Incorporating simple self-care practices into your routine can drastically improve your energy levels, mental clarity, and overall well-being. This could include:

  • Regular physical exercise
  • Mindfulness and meditation to reduce stress
  • Spending quality time with loved ones
  • Ensuring you get adequate rest and sleep
  • Nourishing your body with healthy food
  • Engaging in hobbies or activities that bring you joy

By prioritizing your health and well-being, you’ll find that you’re more equipped to handle the demands of your job, and you’ll feel more fulfilled in your work and personal life.

Burnout is a real and serious issue, but it doesn’t have to be the end of your career. By recognizing the signs, setting boundaries, reigniting your passion, and prioritizing self-care, you can turn your career around and start feeling more in control, energized, and fulfilled.

If you’re ready to reclaim your career and passion as a court reporter, don’t give up just yet. Take small steps every day to protect your well-being, and remember: you can still love what you do without burning out. It’s time to embrace a new way of working—one that prioritizes you.

The Court Reporter vs. The Attorney: A Case of Misplaced Offense

There’s an ongoing and, frankly, tiresome scenario that plays out in courtrooms across the country: a female attorney is mistaken for the court reporter, and she reacts with visible irritation or even outright correction, as though she has just been insulted. The latest example comes from a recent courtroom incident where a videographer mistakenly referred to a female attorney as the court reporter during introductions. She promptly corrected him, making it clear that she was, in fact, an attorney. But what took this incident from a simple correction to a display of arrogance was that later, before beginning her line of questioning, she reiterated, “This is not the court reporter. This is the attorney going to ask a few questions.”

The implication? That being a court reporter is somehow lesser, an insult, a downgrade. Let’s get something straight: being called a court reporter is not an insult. If anything, it’s an upgrade.

The Most Skilled Person in the Room

Attorneys may spend years in law school and pass the grueling bar exam, but let’s talk about the skill level required to be a court reporter. Court reporters have to be among the most highly trained and precise professionals in any courtroom. Their ability to transcribe proceedings in real-time using stenography is an unparalleled skill, requiring a deep understanding of legal terminology, an incredible memory, and a mastery of language that few other professionals can claim.

The average attorney, even one with decades of experience, would be utterly incapable of doing a court reporter’s job. The ability to capture every word, including overlapping speech, dialects, legal jargon, and fast-talking attorneys, without missing a beat is a skill that takes years of rigorous training and practice. Attorneys depend on these transcripts to build cases, appeal rulings, and review proceedings, making court reporters an essential pillar of the legal system. Without them, there is no official record.

The Most Important Person in the Room

It’s been said time and time again by judges, attorneys, and legal professionals alike: the court reporter is the most important person in the courtroom. Why? Because without the record, there is no case. Judges can rule, attorneys can argue, witnesses can testify, but without an accurate transcript of the proceedings, it might as well have never happened.

Judges often remind participants of this fact when speaking to court reporters, acknowledging the critical role they play. They rely on these professionals to maintain an accurate record, something that holds far more weight than any single argument from an attorney. A case can rise or fall on what is documented in the official transcript. A misstep in recording testimony, a failure to capture objections, or a missing statement can be the difference between justice served and justice denied. Attorneys depend on court reporters in ways they don’t always recognize—until they need that transcript and realize just how vital the role truly is.

Let’s Talk Salary and Demand

While some female attorneys might feel offended at being mistaken for a court reporter, perhaps they should take a moment to consider the financial realities of the profession. Court reporting is a lucrative career, often outpacing the salaries of many attorneys, particularly those in the early or mid-stages of their careers.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the median salary for a court reporter is around $60,000 per year, with top professionals earning well into six figures. Some court reporters, especially those specializing in high-profile cases, freelance work, or real-time captioning, make significantly more. In contrast, attorneys—particularly those not working in Big Law—often struggle with immense student loan debt while working long hours for comparatively modest salaries. Many entry-level attorneys earn between $50,000 and $80,000, depending on location and firm size, but with law school debt often exceeding $100,000, their take-home pay isn’t always what it seems.

Moreover, the demand for court reporters is skyrocketing. As the legal system continues to expand and experienced reporters retire, there is an increasing shortage of skilled professionals. Unlike attorneys, who often face oversaturation in the job market, court reporters can find work almost anywhere and command top dollar for their skills. In some regions, courts are struggling to find enough qualified reporters to fill positions, leading to even higher pay and incentives.

Male Court Reporters Exist, Too

Another frustrating aspect of this courtroom gender dynamic is the implication that court reporting is a job exclusively for women. While the profession does have a strong female presence, there are plenty of male court reporters who take immense pride in their work. The idea that being mistaken for a court reporter is offensive because it’s assumed to be a “female” profession is inherently problematic. It’s the same outdated mindset that leads people to look twice when they see a male nurse or a female mechanic. Gender should have nothing to do with the level of respect a profession commands.

The Real Problem: Arrogance, Not Misidentification

At the heart of this issue isn’t just a case of mistaken identity—it’s arrogance. When female attorneys bristle at being called court reporters, they’re not simply correcting a misunderstanding; they’re revealing an underlying assumption that court reporting is beneath them. This attitude is not only misguided but also offensive to the professionals who work tirelessly to ensure the legal process runs smoothly.

Instead of taking offense, attorneys—male and female alike—should take a moment to appreciate the work of the court reporters who document every word they say. They should recognize that their arguments, objections, and witness examinations would be meaningless without an accurate record. They should remember that when a judge reviews a case, they don’t rely on memory or oral arguments—they rely on the transcript, the work of the very court reporters some attorneys seem to look down upon.

Final Verdict

To any attorney who feels slighted at being mistaken for a court reporter: get over yourself. There are far worse things to be called in a courtroom than a court reporter. If anything, take it as a compliment. Court reporters are among the most skilled, vital, and respected professionals in the legal system. Instead of correcting people with an air of superiority, perhaps a simple “Thank you, but I’m the attorney” would suffice—ideally followed by a little gratitude for the person ensuring that your words actually matter in the long run.

After all, when the trial is over, the arguments have been made, and the witnesses have testified, only one thing remains: the record. And that’s the work of the court reporter—the most important person in the room.

Has Digital Reporting Crossed the Rubicon in Court Reporting?

The evolution of digital reporting in the court reporting industry has been a subject of ongoing debate, especially in the context of Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations model. This model categorizes the adoption of new technologies into five segments—Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards—which unfold across the classic bell curve of technological adoption. The question at hand: has digital reporting truly crossed from the early market into the mainstream market, or is it still facing resistance from the traditional court reporting community?

Understanding the Adoption Curve

To place digital reporting within this framework, we must first understand the categories:

  1. Innovators (2.5%) – These are the trailblazers who experiment with new technologies before they gain traction. In the case of digital court reporting, this includes early tech-driven firms that pioneered digital transcription software and real-time recording solutions.
  2. Early Adopters (13.5%) – These individuals and firms see the potential of digital reporting and actively incorporate it into their workflows. They recognize efficiencies in automation, AI-assisted transcription, and cloud-based storage.
  3. Early Majority (34%) – At this stage, a technology begins to move beyond specialized adopters and into broader use. Businesses recognize the advantages of digital reporting, and industry-wide discussions shift from if the technology will succeed to how best to implement it.
  4. Late Majority (34%) – More conservative adopters, who are skeptical of change, begin adopting the technology due to peer influence or industry standardization. By this stage, digital reporting would be seen as the norm rather than the exception.
  5. Laggards (16%) – The last to adopt, often due to a deep-rooted preference for traditional methods or institutional inertia. Some court reporters, fearing job displacement or a loss of skill-based integrity, resist digital reporting despite overwhelming industry change.

The Early Market and Laying the Foundation

A decade ago, digital reporting was still in its Innovator phase. A handful of legal technology firms and forward-thinking court reporting agencies explored AI-powered transcription services and digital capture tools. However, significant hurdles remained, including technological limitations, legal acceptance, and pushback from certified stenographers who viewed the shift as a threat to their profession.

As Early Adopters entered the scene, digital reporting gained traction. Companies like Verbit, Stenovate, and AI-driven transcription platforms began to gain credibility. Legal professionals started recognizing the cost and efficiency benefits of digital reporting, though concerns about accuracy and reliability persisted.

Has Digital Reporting Crossed the Chasm?

Geoffrey Moore, in his book Crossing the Chasm, discusses the critical point where a new technology either secures widespread adoption or fades into niche usage. This “chasm” exists between Early Adopters and the Early Majority.

In the court reporting world, digital reporting has one foot on each side of the chasm. While some jurisdictions and firms have embraced digital solutions, others remain staunchly resistant. The industry is fragmented, with some courts mandating human stenographers while others allow digital transcription.

Factors helping digital reporting cross the chasm:

  • Technological advancements – AI transcription accuracy continues to improve.
  • Shortage of stenographers – A decline in trained stenographers creates demand for alternatives.
  • Legal validation – More courts and law firms accept digital reporting as a viable solution.
  • Cost efficiency – Digital reporting reduces labor costs and allows for faster transcript turnaround.

Barriers preventing full transition into the Early Majority:

  • Regulatory concerns – Some courts still require certified human transcription.
  • Job displacement fears – Traditional court reporters resist due to job security worries.
  • Perceived accuracy issues – AI-driven transcription is not yet perfect, leading to skepticism.
  • Potential lawsuits – A legal challenge against the purveyors of digital reporting technology could slow or halt adoption.
  • Legislative intervention – The U.S. Senate could potentially outlaw digital reporting, creating a significant roadblock to widespread use.

The Emerging Mainstream Market

Despite resistance, digital reporting is moving towards the Early Majority phase. More firms are integrating hybrid models, where digital tools assist rather than replace human court reporters. The industry is at a tipping point where larger firms and institutions begin adopting the technology, making digital reporting a standard rather than an outlier.

If trends continue, digital reporting will reach the Late Majority within the next decade, at which point traditional stenographers will need to adapt by integrating digital tools into their workflows.

The Die Is Cast

Digital reporting has indeed crossed the Rubicon—there is no turning back. While it has not yet reached full mainstream adoption, the court reporting industry is moving inexorably towards a digital future. The balance between tradition and innovation will shape the next decade, but one thing is clear: digital reporting is here to stay.

The question for court reporters, law firms, and legal institutions is no longer if they should adopt digital reporting, but how they will integrate it effectively. The choice is between embracing the shift early or being forced to catch up later. The bell curve of adoption moves forward regardless—where will you position yourself on it?

Unlock Your Full Potential with Strategic Rest: A Guide for Steno Students

If you’re a steno student, you already know that mastering stenography is a marathon, not a sprint. The constant pressure to improve speed and accuracy, the long hours of practice, and the mental intensity required can easily push you to the brink of exhaustion. But what if the very thing you think is helping you—grinding through fatigue—is actually holding you back?

Exhaustion is not a badge of honor. Burnout is not a rite of passage. Running on empty isn’t a sustainable strategy. The best stenographers don’t just work hard; they rest smart. Strategic rest isn’t a weakness—it’s a competitive advantage.

Here’s the truth: Rest isn’t just about sleep. There are seven distinct types of rest that can transform your energy, focus, and performance. Let’s break them down and explore how you can integrate them into your daily steno routine.

1) Mental Rest: Give Your Brain a Break

Stenography is a mental marathon. If you feel like your mind is constantly racing, you need mental rest.

How to get it:

  • Write down any lingering thoughts for two minutes, then close the notebook. This helps declutter your mind.
  • Change physical spaces between big tasks. Moving from your desk to another location signals a mental reset.
  • Block 20 minutes of digital silence daily—no screens, no notifications, just a break for your brain.

2) Physical Rest: Care for Your Body

Steno students often underestimate the toll of sitting for hours. Good posture, hand health, and physical recovery are crucial for long-term success.

How to get it:

  • Lie on your back and put your feet up against a wall for five minutes. This boosts circulation and reduces leg fatigue.
  • Roll your shoulders while filling your water bottle to relieve tension.
  • Stand up and stretch your arms overhead between every practice session or class.

3) Emotional Rest: Release Built-Up Stress

Balancing school, work, and life while pushing toward your speed goals can be emotionally taxing. Emotional rest allows you to process and reset.

How to get it:

  • When you feel triggered or overwhelmed, name the emotion you’re experiencing. Acknowledging it reduces its power.
  • Place your hand on your chest and take five deep breaths to regulate your nervous system.
  • Step outside for two minutes between practice sessions or meetings to reset your mood.

4) Social Rest: Manage Your Energy in Relationships

Not all social interactions are restful. If you’re constantly surrounded by people who drain you, you need social rest.

How to get it:

  • Take lunch away from your desk. A change of scenery allows for a mental break.
  • Have at least one real, meaningful conversation each day that isn’t about work or steno.
  • Schedule a 10-minute buffer between meetings or classes to recharge.

5) Sensory Rest: Reduce Overstimulation

Endless screens, background noise, and constant notifications overwhelm your senses. Sensory rest helps you reset.

How to get it:

  • Close your eyes for 20 seconds every hour to reduce visual strain.
  • Work from a different location for 30 minutes to change your sensory input.
  • Turn off all notifications for 90 minutes to experience uninterrupted focus.

6) Creative Rest: Reignite Inspiration

Steno requires both precision and adaptability, but when you’re stuck in a rigid routine, creativity suffers. Creative rest helps refresh your mind.

How to get it:

  • Write with your opposite hand for one minute. This activates different neural pathways and stimulates creativity.
  • Listen to a new music genre while working to introduce fresh auditory stimuli.
  • Take a different route to a familiar place to break routine thinking patterns.

7) Spiritual Rest: Connect to Your Purpose

When the grind feels meaningless, spiritual rest helps reconnect you with why you started in the first place.

How to get it:

  • State one value you’re honoring today (e.g., perseverance, discipline, integrity).
  • Spend two minutes in the sunlight with your arms open to reset your energy.
  • Send an appreciation message to someone who has supported you on your journey.

The 1% Master Strategic Recovery

The top stenographers don’t just push through fatigue—they master recovery. The 99% accept burnout as normal. The 1% use strategic rest as their advantage.

Now, ask yourself: Which type of rest do you need today? Implement even one of these habits, and you’ll notice the difference in your focus, stamina, and overall success.

Your potential isn’t just about how hard you work—it’s about how well you rest.

Parallels Between Unauthorized Legal Practice and Digital Court Recording

The legal system relies on stringent regulations to ensure fairness and accuracy. Unauthorized legal practice (UPL) and unregulated digital court recording present serious risks to judicial integrity, making proper licensing and oversight essential.

The unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and digital court recording share notable similarities in terms of regulation, ethical standards, and their overall impact on the legal system.

Regulation and Certification

  • UPL: Practicing law is strictly regulated, requiring individuals to pass the bar exam and obtain a license to provide legal services. Anyone offering legal representation or advice without proper credentials is engaging in UPL, which is illegal and subject to penalties.
  • Digital Court Recording: Similarly, court reporting often necessitates certification or licensure to ensure the accuracy and confidentiality of legal transcripts. Unauthorized individuals providing transcription services risk legal consequences and may jeopardize the integrity of sensitive legal information.

Ethical and Professional Standards

  • UPL: Attorneys adhere to stringent ethical codes, including rules on confidentiality, competence, and conflicts of interest. Those who practice law without proper training or oversight lack these ethical obligations, potentially leading to malpractice and harm.
  • Digital Court Recording: Untrained or uncertified digital recorders may produce inaccurate transcripts, which can lead to legal misunderstandings and compromise judicial proceedings.

Consequences for the Legal System

  • UPL: Unauthorized legal practitioners can weaken the justice system by providing misleading or inadequate legal counsel, affecting case outcomes, and diminishing public confidence in legal institutions.
  • Digital Court Recording: Incorrect or tampered transcripts from unqualified digital recorders can disrupt legal processes, affecting appeals, legal precedents, and the overall fairness of court proceedings. Errors in documentation may result in wrongful convictions, retrials, or the loss of the right to appeal.

Real-World Cases of UPL and AI in Legal Services

These concerns are not just theoretical—they are playing out in courtrooms and legal tech spaces today.

In a recent Superior Court session, I observed a judge issue a stern warning to a litigant about the serious legal consequences of representing himself in a case involving a shared trust with his wife. The judge made it clear that such actions could amount to the unauthorized practice of law, which is a criminal offense. Here is what the judge said:

THE COURT: “All right. So I haven’t researched the issue, but I will say that sounds like what the law probably is, that you would be then, you know — well, I don’t know the answer. But it’s a serious issue that you may be practicing law without a license and that is a crime. Do you understand that you may potentially be committing a crime in open court? You understand that?”

MR. LEISNER: “Yes, I do, your Honor.”

THE COURT: “All right. Did you seek advice of counsel that you are potentially about to commit a crime in open court right now? I suggest you talk with your attorney before proceeding on a very potentially perilous path.”

Another real-world instance of unauthorized legal practice involving technology arose in a case against the AI-driven legal platform Upsolve. The platform automates the preparation of bankruptcy forms based on user-provided data and was found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. A pro-per petitioner used Upsolve to draft a voluntary Chapter 7 filing, which led the court to question how the document was prepared “without counsel.” The court issued an Order to Show Cause to Upsolve, arguing that its system effectively provided legal advice by filtering options based on users’ characteristics. This case underscores the growing tension between technological advancement and legal regulations, illustrating how AI-backed platforms must navigate strict legal boundaries to avoid UPL violations.

The Growing Impact of AI in Legal Practice and UPL Risks

While the Upsolve case is a significant example, it is not the only instance where AI-driven technology has raised concerns about the unauthorized practice of law. Various AI-powered legal tools, including chatbots and automated document generators, have emerged with the promise of making legal services more accessible. However, these tools often operate in a gray area where they provide guidance that could be interpreted as legal advice.

For example, AI-powered legal chatbots have been used to assist individuals in drafting contracts, responding to legal claims, and navigating court procedures. While some platforms market themselves as “self-help tools,” courts and regulatory bodies have questioned whether they cross the line into practicing law without a license. The challenge lies in defining when an AI tool is merely providing information versus when it is offering legal advice that should be given by a licensed attorney.

One major concern is that AI-generated legal recommendations may not account for the nuances of individual cases, potentially leading users to make decisions that harm their legal standing. Additionally, AI models are only as reliable as the data they are trained on, meaning they could inadvertently provide misleading or incomplete legal guidance.

As AI continues to evolve, regulators and legal professionals must determine how to balance innovation with the need to protect consumers from unauthorized or inaccurate legal assistance. The Upsolve case serves as an early warning that legal tech companies must carefully navigate compliance with UPL laws or risk legal repercussions.

The Role of Technology

  • UPL: The internet has made it easier for individuals to offer unauthorized legal services, increasing the risks associated with unverified online legal advice.
  • Digital Court Recording: Advances in digital transcription and remote court reporting have streamlined legal documentation but have also enabled unqualified individuals to enter the field, increasing the risk of inaccuracies.

Challenges in Enforcement

  • UPL: Identifying and prosecuting UPL violators is difficult, especially with the anonymity provided by online platforms and the complexity of defining when legal guidance crosses into unauthorized practice.
  • Digital Court Recording: With the rise of remote hearings and digital court reporting, ensuring that only certified professionals handle legal transcripts has become more challenging. Regulatory bodies must remain vigilant to uphold industry standards.

Both unauthorized legal practice and unregulated digital court recording pose serious risks to the justice system’s integrity, efficiency, and fairness. The necessity of professional licensing, regulatory oversight, and adaptation to evolving technology is critical in both fields. Upholding high ethical standards in law and court reporting is essential to maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

To ensure reliable court reporting services, platforms like CoverCrow, Inc. provide law firms access to a network of certified stenographers and voice writers across the United States.

As technology advances, regulators and legal professionals must remain proactive. Whether through stronger enforcement or innovative solutions like eCourt Reporters, the legal field must balance accessibility with accountability.

Is the Court Reporting Shortage Real or Manufactured

Subscribe to continue reading

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

The Hidden Truth About Unpaid Transcript Copy Orders in the Legal Industry

The legal industry relies heavily on court reporters to provide accurate transcripts of depositions, hearings, and trials. These transcripts are vital for attorneys, clients, and the justice system. However, a lesser-known issue plagues the industry—unpaid copy orders. Recently, I encountered a situation that piqued my curiosity about how frequently this occurs and how much of it goes unnoticed by court reporters.

The Unexpected Call and What It Revealed

I recently received a direct call from an attorney requesting transcripts from a case I worked on last year through an agency. While I was happy to help, it left me wondering—how did this attorney get my personal contact information? More importantly, how many times have attorneys or firms placed orders without my knowledge?

Typically, when a transcript is needed, copies are ordered through the original reporting agency. However, there are occasions where the system is bypassed—intentionally or unintentionally—leading to unpaid invoices and lost income for reporters. While I haven’t encountered many instances where copies weren’t paid, I estimate this happens a few times a year. If this is my experience, how many others in the industry are unknowingly affected?

A Startling Allegation and Concerns About Unpaid Invoices

While discussing this issue with a colleague, I learned about a troubling claim involving a court reporting agency. A friend of mine knew someone who worked in the accounting department of a large regional agency and later resigned after alleging that they discovered a significant sum in unpaid copy orders that had not been disbursed to reporters. It was in excess of $3 million. The employee reportedly took a document showing this and shared it with my colleague.

If true, this revelation suggests that some agencies may be receiving payments for copy orders and not passing along the appropriate fees to the reporters who created the transcripts. While these claims have not been independently verified, they highlight ongoing concerns about financial transparency in the industry.

How Often Does This Happen?

The more I spoke with others in the field, the more I realized how common these scenarios are. Many reporters receive copy order requests directly and dutifully funnel them through their agencies, expecting the proper payments. However, there are cases where payments are never made, or agencies claim they never received the order.

A close friend of mine experienced this firsthand. She submitted a copy order to her agency after-the-fact, only to be met with denial. The agency claimed they had no knowledge of the order, even though she had documentation proving otherwise. If she had never followed up, that income would have been lost entirely. Her experience underscores the importance of keeping meticulous records and verifying payments.

Why Does This Happen?

Several factors contribute to this ongoing issue:

  1. Lack of Transparency – Many reporters assume that agencies will handle payments ethically, but without a clear system for tracking copy orders, it’s easy for agencies to misappropriate funds.
  2. Direct Attorney Orders – Attorneys sometimes reach out directly to reporters, bypassing the agency. While this isn’t inherently problematic, it raises questions about how frequently it occurs without the reporter’s knowledge.
  3. Agency Oversight (or Lack Thereof) – Some agencies may simply be disorganized, while others may have systemic issues that result in missed or withheld payments.
  4. Legal Industry Complexity – The legal industry is complex, and many moving parts can make it difficult for reporters to track who has paid for what.

What Can Court Reporters Do?

Given the prevalence of this issue, court reporters must take proactive steps to protect themselves from lost income:

1. Keep Detailed Records

Maintain thorough records of all transcripts you produce and track when and to whom copies are sold. Keep emails, order confirmations, and invoices organized for reference in case of disputes.

2. Follow Up on Payments

Do not assume agencies are processing copy orders correctly. Follow up on outstanding invoices, and if necessary, request confirmation that payments have been received and disbursed.

3. Communicate Directly with Attorneys (When Possible)

If an attorney contacts you directly, take note and ensure the agency is informed (if necessary). Keeping an open line of communication can prevent misunderstandings and lost payments.

4. Advocate for Transparency in the Industry

Court reporters should advocate for more transparent policies regarding copy order payments. Agencies should provide clear documentation of incoming payments and their distribution to reporters.

5. Consider Working Independently

While agencies provide valuable resources and job opportunities, some reporters find it beneficial to work independently to ensure they receive direct payments for their work.

The Importance of Awareness

Unpaid copy orders are an unfortunate reality in the court reporting industry. While some instances may be due to oversight, others appear to result from a lack of transparency. The allegation about the undisclosed fund of unpaid invoices highlights the need for greater scrutiny and accountability in the industry.

Court reporters must stay vigilant, track their work, and ensure they receive proper compensation. By fostering transparency and accountability, we can work toward a fairer system that respects the hard work of court reporters and ensures they are paid for every transcript they produce.

If you’re a court reporter, have you experienced similar situations? Have you found strategies to ensure you’re compensated fairly? Let’s continue the conversation and raise awareness about this pressing issue in our industry.

Stenograph’s Price Hike Raises Antitrust Concerns

Recently, a consumer posted a concerning update about a significant change to Stenograph’s license transfer fees, which have more than doubled from $1,400 to $3,400. For those unaware, Stenograph is a company that provides software and equipment for the stenographic profession, and its Case CAT software is widely used by court reporters. This price hike has led some to question whether the company’s actions are in violation of fair business practices, especially considering the impact on retiring professionals looking to sell their software to newcomers.

The Price Hike and Its Implications

A year ago, this consumer had contemplated selling their Case CAT software but opted not to at the time due to the $1,400 license transfer fee. However, upon revisiting the decision recently, the consumer was shocked to discover that the fee had risen to a staggering $3,400. The individual had always maintained their support contract with Stenograph for peace of mind and the most recent updates, with the intention of selling the software to help a new reporter get started. Now, with the new fees, that option seems much less viable.

For many, this change raises a red flag. Not only does it seem to effectively price out retiring reporters looking to help newcomers in the field, but it also appears to position the transfer fee on par with the cost of buying the software directly from Stenograph. This drastic increase has left consumers feeling betrayed, as the company’s actions are viewed as reducing opportunities for independent sellers and potentially even stifling the competition.

Antitrust Violations: Is Stenograph Engaged in Anti-Competitive Behavior?

The stark increase in the transfer fee is more than just a consumer grievance—it raises questions about Stenograph’s market dominance and the potential for antitrust violations. The case bears resemblance to historical antitrust cases, such as the infamous Ticketmaster case, where the company was accused of monopolizing ticket sales. In the case of Stenograph, consumers may wonder whether the company is engaging in monopolistic practices that restrict competition and unfairly inflate prices for those reliant on their products.

Let’s break this down.

Monopolization and Market Power

One key factor in any antitrust lawsuit is proving that a company has a dominant share of the market in question. In the case of Stenograph, if the company controls a significant portion of the stenographic software and hardware market, it could be considered a monopoly. This dominance is crucial in determining whether the company’s actions have unfairly restricted competition. If Stenograph has the power to set prices without fear of competitors undercutting them, their price hike could be seen as a strategic move to capitalize on their market control.

Exclusionary Practices

Exclusionary practices occur when a company engages in behavior that limits competitors’ ability to operate in the market. This can include high switching costs, exclusive contracts, or price-fixing. If Stenograph has implemented restrictive practices such as discouraging competition through high fees for selling or transferring their software, they could be setting up a scenario where new or independent players in the field are unable to compete with Stenograph’s pricing and products.

In this case, the increased transfer fees could be seen as a tool to deter retirees from selling their software, thereby reducing the market supply of secondhand licenses and keeping the prices inflated. If Stenograph is refusing to allow competitors to offer viable alternatives, this could further strengthen claims of anti-competitive conduct.

Consumer Harm

One of the most important considerations in any antitrust case is whether consumers have suffered direct harm due to anti-competitive behavior. In this case, the increase in fees directly impacts court reporters, particularly those nearing retirement, who may rely on selling their software to recoup some of their investment. If this price hike forces them to either sell at a loss or abandon the idea altogether, it could be argued that Stenograph is unfairly exploiting their market position to the detriment of consumers. This kind of harm is key in proving that Stenograph’s actions are anti-competitive.

Legal Implications: Could Stenograph Face a Lawsuit?

Consumers and competitors could potentially file a lawsuit under antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act, if they can demonstrate that Stenograph’s practices constitute monopolization or an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Sherman Act, in particular, prohibits monopolistic practices, while the Clayton Act addresses activities that may harm competition, such as exclusive contracts or price-fixing.

If Stenograph were found guilty of violating these laws, they could face a range of legal remedies, including treble damages (three times the actual damages suffered), attorney’s fees, and even a formal investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ). These actions could lead to a settlement, as was the case in the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger, where the DOJ required the company to license its software to competitors and prohibited retaliatory actions against venues using competing services.

What Does This Mean for Consumers?

For consumers, this development could lead to significant financial harm if the price hikes continue to outpace the ability of individuals to transfer their licenses at reasonable rates. Those considering retirement or selling their software may find themselves stuck between the financial burden of Stenograph’s fees and the potential for legal action.

If a significant number of consumers are affected by these price hikes, it could prompt a class-action lawsuit or an investigation into the company’s practices. Reporting these grievances to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Department of Justice (DOJ) could also encourage further scrutiny of Stenograph’s actions and possibly lead to regulatory changes.

At the heart of this issue lies the balance between business interests and consumer welfare. While companies have a right to set their prices, they must also be mindful of how their pricing practices impact the competitive landscape and the people who rely on their products. If Stenograph’s fee hikes are found to restrict competition or harm consumers, there may be serious legal consequences, and the company could face scrutiny akin to what Ticketmaster experienced in its antitrust cases. For now, consumers are left to question whether these practices are in line with fair business conduct or if they are the first steps toward anti-competitive behavior that could affect the entire stenographic industry.

The Hidden Costs of Replacing Human Court Reporters with Digital Alternatives

In today’s fast-paced world, it’s no surprise that businesses and law firms are constantly on the lookout for ways to reduce costs. In the legal industry, one area where firms often attempt to trim expenses is in court reporting. With the rise of digital technology, many attorneys are turning to digital court reporters, instead of traditional human-certified shorthand reporters, believing it’s a cost-effective solution. However, this shortcut could lead to significant risks and hidden expenses that far outweigh the initial savings.

Just like DIY trademark registration may seem like an easy, low-cost option, but ultimately puts businesses at risk, relying on digital court reporters to replace human shorthand reporters may seem economical in the short term, but could end up costing firms far more in the long run.

The Appeal of Digital Court Reporters

Digital court reporters use audio and video recording equipment to capture the proceedings, and many believe this technology provides a quicker, cheaper alternative to human court reporters. In an industry where time is money, it’s understandable why some law firms opt for the more affordable and seemingly efficient digital methods. These systems promise lower upfront costs and faster turnaround times, making them an attractive option for busy firms looking to manage their budgets.

The Hidden Dangers of Skipping Certified Shorthand Reporters

While digital court reporting technology has its benefits, it doesn’t come without significant risks. Just like DIY trademarks leave businesses vulnerable to legal complications, digital court reporting can expose law firms to costly pitfalls:

  1. Accuracy and Quality of Transcription: One of the greatest strengths of human court reporters is their ability to transcribe live proceedings with unmatched accuracy. Certified shorthand reporters are trained to understand complex legal language, courtroom dynamics, and even nuances in tone and speech that may affect the meaning of the record. Digital systems, however, are prone to errors, especially when background noise or overlapping speech occurs, leading to inaccurate transcripts that could harm a case’s outcome.
  2. Legal Implications: Court transcripts are a vital part of the legal process, often serving as the official record of what transpired in a courtroom. A small mistake in a transcript can lead to appeals, delays, or even loss of cases. In high-stakes litigation, an inaccurate or incomplete record could result in an attorney losing credibility or facing malpractice claims. Courts and legal professionals rely on the expertise of human reporters to ensure that these records are both precise and reliable.
  3. Lack of Accountability: While digital systems can record proceedings, they do not offer the same level of accountability as human reporters. Shorthand reporters are present in the courtroom, paying close attention to the proceedings, and are ready to intervene if something goes wrong, such as a malfunctioning recording device or a missed transcript entry. Digital systems, on the other hand, often rely on automated processes without a human eye to double-check the work, leaving room for significant errors.
  4. Missing Nuance and Context: In complex legal cases, certain subtleties, such as emotional tone, gestures, or voice inflection, can significantly alter the meaning of a testimony or statement. A skilled human reporter can capture these nuances in real-time, adding context to the record that digital systems may overlook. When these nuances are missed, the integrity of the court record is compromised, which could affect the case’s outcome.

How Certified Shorthand Reporters Save You Money

Agencies bill attorneys the same fees for both digital court reporters and traditional human stenographers, meaning there’s no upfront cost savings when opting for digital alternatives. However, despite this, certified shorthand reporters save law firms money in the long run by reducing the likelihood of costly errors. These professionals are trained to produce accurate, reliable transcripts that can withstand legal scrutiny. Their expertise helps minimize the risks of mistakes, rework, and potential legal challenges that could arise from inaccurate transcripts.

Moreover, certified shorthand reporters can help expedite the legal process by ensuring the official court record is complete and precise, preventing delays in proceedings. On the other hand, relying on digital methods—while offering no cost reduction—could result in delays, increased litigation expenses, or damage to a law firm’s reputation if the quality of the court record is compromised.

Protecting Your Firm’s Reputation and Your Clients’ Interests

Just as trademark lawyers protect businesses from the risks of DIY filings, human court reporters safeguard the integrity of legal proceedings and the reputation of law firms. They provide peace of mind by ensuring the accuracy and professionalism that digital systems cannot always deliver. In the long run, investing in certified shorthand reporters is not only a smart financial decision, but also a critical measure to protect your clients’ interests and your firm’s credibility.

When it comes to court reporting, don’t be tempted by the allure of lower upfront costs. Cutting corners with digital court reporters could end up costing more in terms of lost cases, reputation, and legal risks. Protect the integrity of your legal practice and invest in the reliable expertise of human court reporters to ensure that your cases are properly documented and your clients’ interests are defended.

If you want to learn more about the long-term value of certified court reporters and the risks associated with digital alternatives, take the time to evaluate your options carefully. In the legal world, getting the details right can make all the difference.

Rethinking the “Digital Court Reporting Revolution”

The article titled The Digital Court Reporting Revolution presents an overly optimistic view of technological advancements, particularly AI, in transforming the court reporting industry. While some of these technologies are undeniably valuable, the overall narrative falls short in accurately representing the complexities and challenges that Court Reporting Agencies (CRAs) will face in the coming years. Below are some of the key issues with this portrayal and why the direction suggested in the article might not be the right path to take.

1. AI-Powered Speech Recognition: Overstated Claims

The article claims that AI-powered speech recognition has made dramatic strides, with accuracy rates surpassing 95%. However, this figure glosses over the nuanced challenges that still hinder AI’s widespread adoption in legal environments. Legal transcription requires not just accuracy, but the ability to handle specialized terminology, courtroom jargon, and complex nuances in speech patterns. Even the most advanced AI systems still struggle with this, particularly in multi-speaker scenarios or when dealing with less-than-ideal audio quality, which is common in real-world courtrooms.

The assertion that AI can match or exceed human-level accuracy is misleading. While AI may perform well in controlled environments, the real test is how it holds up in the unpredictable, high-stakes settings of legal proceedings. Human stenographers, with their years of training, judgment, and expertise in legal contexts, will always have an edge in ensuring both accuracy and context, making AI far from a complete replacement.

2. Human-AI Collaboration Models: Missing the Human Touch

The article advocates for human-AI collaboration models but fails to acknowledge that human expertise is far from being “augmented” by AI—it remains the cornerstone of legal transcription. The reality is that human court reporters are not simply verifying AI output; they are actively making judgment calls, interpreting context, and ensuring the integrity of the transcript. AI tools can only perform as well as the humans overseeing them, and this oversight is not just about catching errors—it’s about understanding the deeper legal context that machines cannot replicate.

Moreover, the blending of AI with human oversight, while potentially useful, doesn’t solve the fundamental issues of training and bias in AI systems. Court reporting is not a one-size-fits-all business. Specialized courtrooms, varying accents, and regional dialects present challenges that even the best AI cannot navigate without substantial human intervention.

3. Remote and Hybrid Proceedings: Overemphasis on Convenience

While remote and hybrid proceedings have gained popularity due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the article glosses over the inherent limitations of virtual court reporting. Video conferencing platforms like Zoom or Microsoft Teams are often prone to connectivity issues, poor audio quality, and security vulnerabilities—all of which can undermine the integrity of court records. While these tools are indeed useful in certain circumstances, they are no substitute for the reliability and security that in-person court reporting ensures.

Additionally, the suggestion that CRAs can now serve clients “beyond their traditional geographic boundaries” without incurring travel expenses is shortsighted. The legal field still requires a high level of precision and human interaction, which can’t always be replicated in a virtual environment. Remote proceedings also present logistical and ethical challenges, particularly regarding confidentiality and access to the complete scope of case information. Not every legal matter is suitable for remote hearings, and agencies should remain cautious in overestimating the capacity of remote tools.

4. Automated Workflow Solutions: An Overreliance on Technology

Automating document formatting and transcription workflows may indeed streamline some of the manual processes in court reporting, but automation is not a cure-all. Legal documentation is inherently complex, with strict formatting requirements, jurisdictional variations, and intricate case details. Even sophisticated automation systems cannot match the flexibility and judgment of a skilled human court reporter. While automating basic tasks may reduce costs, it can also lead to loss of nuanced control over the final product. Legal professionals should be wary of pushing automation too far, as it risks eroding the accuracy and quality that clients depend on.

Moreover, such systems introduce their own set of security and reliability concerns. As court reporting becomes more digitized, it opens up new vulnerabilities related to data storage, encryption, and system failures. The overreliance on automation could make CRAs more vulnerable to security breaches and data loss, as highlighted by the article’s later focus on enhanced security standards. A balanced, hybrid approach may be more prudent than relying too heavily on technology.

5. Security Standards: A Necessary but Insufficient Focus

Security is rightly emphasized in the article, but the focus on security standards alone does not address the broader, more pressing issue of data reliability. As court reporting agencies adopt digital and AI-driven tools, they risk losing the control they once had over the accuracy and context of their reports. A focus on robust cybersecurity measures is critical, but it should be paired with a more thoughtful approach to how technology integrates into the legal documentation process. The industry needs to prioritize both security and reliability in tandem, not just security in isolation.

Conclusion: A Balanced Future, Not a Technological Revolution

The article paints an overly optimistic picture of AI and automation reshaping the court reporting industry, but it fails to account for the significant role that human expertise will continue to play in the field. While embracing technological innovation is necessary for CRAs to stay competitive, the emphasis should be on creating balanced, hybrid workflows that combine the strengths of both technology and human professionals.

Technology, in its current form, cannot replace the nuanced understanding and judgment that human court reporters bring to the table. Instead of racing toward a purely digital future, CRAs should focus on fostering collaboration between humans and machines, ensuring that technology serves as an aid to, rather than a replacement for, human judgment.

The path forward is not about embracing an AI-dominated future, but about leveraging AI and digital tools responsibly, with an emphasis on maintaining the integrity, accuracy, and ethical standards that are the foundation of the legal profession.

Seeing Stress and Surviving Vicarious Trauma for Court Reporters

Court reporters play a crucial role in the judicial system, meticulously transcribing legal proceedings and ensuring an accurate record of testimony and legal discourse. However, the nature of their work exposes them to distressing content, including cases of violence, abuse, and other emotionally charged subject matter. The cumulative exposure to such material can lead to stress and vicarious trauma, impacting both mental and physical well-being. This seminar aims to provide court reporters with a comprehensive understanding of vicarious trauma, its indicators, and self-care strategies to mitigate its effects.

Understanding Vicarious Trauma

Vicarious trauma, also known as secondary traumatic stress, occurs when individuals are indirectly exposed to traumatic material through their professional responsibilities. While court reporters do not directly experience the traumatic events they transcribe, repeated exposure to graphic details, emotional testimonies, and intense courtroom proceedings can lead to emotional and psychological distress similar to that experienced by primary trauma victims.

Experiences That Contribute to Stress and Trauma Reactions

Several factors can contribute to court reporters experiencing stress and vicarious trauma, including:

  • Graphic and Disturbing Content: Cases involving violent crimes, child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault often contain distressing details that can be difficult to process.
  • High-Pressure Work Environment: Court reporters must maintain accuracy under pressure, often working with strict deadlines and prolonged periods of intense focus.
  • Emotional Testimonies: Witness testimonies filled with pain and suffering can evoke strong emotional reactions, even in those trained to remain neutral.
  • Long Hours and Repetitive Exposure: Chronic exposure to distressing material over months or years can lead to cumulative stress and burnout.

Recognizing the Signs of Stress and Vicarious Trauma

Identifying the early signs of stress and trauma reactions is crucial for implementing effective self-care strategies. Some common indicators include:

Emotional Signs

  • Feelings of sadness, anxiety, or hopelessness
  • Increased irritability or emotional numbness
  • Difficulty concentrating or maintaining focus
  • Persistent feelings of guilt or helplessness

Physical Signs

  • Fatigue or constant exhaustion
  • Frequent headaches or muscle tension
  • Sleep disturbances, including insomnia or nightmares
  • Digestive issues or other stress-related ailments

Behavioral and Cognitive Signs

  • Withdrawal from social interactions
  • Increased reliance on unhealthy coping mechanisms (e.g., alcohol, overeating, excessive screen time)
  • Difficulty maintaining work-life balance
  • Intrusive thoughts or flashbacks related to traumatic content

Self-Care Strategies for Managing Stress and Vicarious Trauma

Implementing self-care strategies can help mitigate the negative effects of vicarious trauma and promote overall well-being. Below are some recommended approaches:

1. Emotional Self-Care

  • Seek Professional Support: Talking to a therapist or counselor specializing in trauma can provide guidance on processing distressing experiences.
  • Practice Mindfulness and Meditation: Engaging in mindfulness exercises can help court reporters stay grounded and reduce emotional distress.
  • Journal Your Thoughts: Writing about your feelings and reactions can help process emotions and alleviate stress.

2. Physical Self-Care

  • Exercise Regularly: Physical activity, such as walking, yoga, or strength training, helps reduce stress and improve overall health.
  • Maintain a Healthy Diet: Eating balanced meals rich in nutrients can support both mental and physical resilience.
  • Prioritize Sleep: Establishing a consistent sleep routine is essential for recovery and emotional regulation.

3. Professional Boundaries and Work-Life Balance

  • Take Breaks During Work: Short breaks between sessions can help reset the mind and reduce cognitive overload.
  • Set Limits on Exposure: If possible, rotate assignments or take time away from particularly distressing cases.
  • Engage in Enjoyable Activities: Pursuing hobbies, socializing with friends, or engaging in creative outlets can provide a much-needed mental escape.

4. Building a Support System

  • Connect with Colleagues: Talking to fellow court reporters about shared experiences can provide validation and support.
  • Join Peer Support Groups: Many legal professionals benefit from structured support groups where they can discuss work-related challenges.
  • Maintain Strong Personal Relationships: Nurturing connections with family and friends can provide emotional stability and perspective.

The Importance of Awareness and Proactive Care

By recognizing the signs of stress and vicarious trauma early, court reporters can take proactive steps to protect their mental health. Awareness of the risks and implementing a structured self-care regimen can help mitigate the long-term effects of secondary trauma.

This seminar serves as an essential resource, offering court reporters the tools needed to navigate their demanding roles while maintaining their well-being. Through education, self-care, and support, they can continue to perform their vital duties without compromising their mental health.

Court Calendar Life is a Daily Juggle

For many, the term “calendar manager” conjures up an image of someone neatly organizing appointments, ensuring everything runs smoothly, and calmly coordinating schedules. But for those of us who live it, we know the reality is far from a serene desk job. In the world of court reporting, being a calendar manager is akin to being an air traffic controller—juggling countless moving pieces, resolving conflicts before they turn into disasters, and managing last-minute surprises that seem to materialize out of thin air.

The Morning Scramble

The day typically starts with a fresh batch of emails, voicemails, and text messages from attorneys, law firms, and reporters. Overnight cancellations, reschedules, and urgent new requests flood in. There’s a deposition that just got pushed up by an hour, a last-minute request for a real-time reporter, and a law firm calling to make sure the reporter they requested is still available.

As I sip my coffee (which, let’s be honest, is usually cold by the time I get to it), I begin triaging. Which reporters are already scheduled? Who can take a last-minute job? Who has a specific client request? Who is available to cover a 7:00 a.m. video deposition two counties away? The balancing act has begun.

The Assignment Puzzle

Once the fire drills are momentarily under control, it’s time to assign jobs. But it’s not as simple as plugging names into a schedule. Every job has specific requirements—some attorneys have their favorite reporters, some depositions require specialized skills like real-time or CART, and others need a reporter who is comfortable covering highly technical patent cases.

And then there’s the human factor. Some reporters prefer to stay within certain regions, while others don’t mind a bit of a drive (especially if there’s mileage reimbursement involved). Some reporters have kids to drop off in the morning or evening commitments that limit how late they can work. Some prefer multi-day trials, while others thrive on short and sweet half-day depos.

There’s an art to this process—a delicate balance between matching the right reporter to the right job while keeping everyone happy.

The Confirmations Begin

With assignments set, confirmations start rolling out. Emails, calls, and texts go out to reporters and law firms, ensuring everyone knows where they need to be and when. Ideally, the schedule stays intact, but more often than not, the chaos continues. A reporter calls in sick, a client requests a specific videographer who is already booked, or an attorney suddenly changes the location of the depo to an entirely different city—just an hour before it’s set to begin.

It’s a full-time game of Tetris, shifting and rearranging assignments, calling in favors, and ensuring no deposition goes uncovered.

The Mayhem and Mishaps

Ask any calendar manager, and they’ll have their fair share of war stories. There was the time a reporter was sent to the wrong address—twice. Or the deposition that required an interpreter, only to have the interpreter show up fluent in the wrong language. Or the court reporter who arrived at a firm only to discover the entire building was locked, with no way to contact the attorney who had scheduled the depo.

Then there are the unexpected client quirks—lawyers who forget to tell us their depo requires a real-time transcript until the morning of, witnesses who cancel five minutes before a start time, or firms who schedule three depositions in one day but don’t bother to mention that they all require different types of specialists.

And let’s not forget the dreaded “reporter double-booking” fiasco—when a last-minute assignment gets accepted by multiple calendar managers, and two reporters show up at the same location, both believing they were assigned the job. Awkward, to say the least.

The Unsung Heroes

Through all the madness, calendar managers remain the backbone of the court reporting industry. While reporters are out in the field covering depositions, calendar teams are behind the scenes ensuring schedules are filled, confirmations are made, and emergencies are handled.

Reporters rely on calendar managers to be their eyes and ears before they even step into a deposition. They need to trust that the job details are accurate, that all special requests have been noted, and that they won’t be sent to the wrong place at the wrong time (at least, not on purpose!).

Why It Matters

For court reporters, understanding the controlled chaos of calendar management can lead to a better working relationship with scheduling teams. Flexibility, prompt communication, and a bit of patience go a long way in helping us do our jobs effectively. Likewise, calendar managers appreciate reporters who keep their availability updated, confirm assignments quickly, and communicate when issues arise.

At the end of the day, we’re all in this together. Whether it’s a high-profile case or a routine deposition, the goal is the same: ensuring seamless coverage and top-tier service for clients. And despite the daily madness, the satisfaction of pulling off the impossible—finding coverage for a last-minute depo, coordinating a multi-location proceeding, or simply getting everyone where they need to be—makes the chaos worth it.

So, the next time you get a call from your calendar manager at an odd hour or receive a frantic email about a schedule change, just know—it’s all part of the fast-paced, unpredictable, and strangely exhilarating world of court reporting scheduling. And yes, while we schedule, assign, and confirm—nothing about it is ever that easy!

Why AI Translation Tools Have No Place in Legal Depositions and Courtrooms

Legal proceedings require absolute precision, particularly when language barriers arise. Depositions and court hearings depend on accurate interpretation to ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of the judicial process. However, the growing reliance on AI-powered translation tools poses significant risks in legal settings. While AI has made strides in language translation, it remains unsuitable for high-stakes environments like depositions and courtrooms, where even a slight misinterpretation can have serious legal consequences.

The Critical Role of Human Interpreters in Legal Proceedings

A deposition is a sworn testimony taken before a trial, allowing attorneys to gather crucial information from witnesses. When language differences exist, human interpreters bridge the communication gap, ensuring testimonies are faithfully conveyed without distortion. Unlike AI translation tools, professional legal interpreters possess the necessary expertise to navigate complex legal terminology, cultural nuances, and the high-pressure nature of courtroom settings.

The Dangers of AI Translation in Legal Settings

1. Lack of Legal Nuance and Context Awareness

Legal terminology is highly specialized, and slight deviations in meaning can lead to misrepresentation of facts. AI tools rely on pattern recognition rather than a deep understanding of legal principles. This makes them prone to errors when interpreting nuanced terms or idiomatic expressions crucial to a case’s outcome.

2. Inability to Maintain Courtroom and Deposition Ethics

Interpreters in legal settings are required to uphold strict ethical standards, including impartiality and confidentiality. AI translation tools lack accountability and cannot ensure privacy or neutrality in sensitive legal matters. A human interpreter understands the ethical responsibilities tied to legal interpretation, while an AI tool simply processes text without regard for legal implications.

3. Failure to Accurately Interpret Tone and Intent

Legal interpretation is more than just converting words from one language to another—it requires an understanding of tone, emotion, and intent. Witness testimonies often involve subtle cues that AI cannot capture, potentially altering the perceived meaning of statements. A human interpreter considers context, adjusts for cultural differences, and ensures accurate conveyance of a speaker’s intended message.

4. Risk of Misinterpretation Leading to Legal Consequences

Inaccurate translations can lead to appeals, case dismissals, or even wrongful convictions. If an AI-generated translation distorts a testimony, the legal ramifications can be severe. The legal system depends on precise communication, and using AI in place of a qualified interpreter increases the risk of costly and irreversible errors.

5. Inadequate Handling of Specialized Legal Fields

Legal cases often involve industry-specific terminology, such as medical malpractice, intellectual property law, or financial regulations. Human interpreters with expertise in these areas ensure that specialized terms are correctly interpreted. AI lacks the ability to adapt to such complexities and may misinterpret critical legal jargon, jeopardizing the case.

6. Challenges with Real-Time Interpretation

Depositions and courtroom proceedings require real-time interpretation, often in high-pressure situations. AI translation tools are not designed for live, on-the-spot legal interpretation. Delays, misinterpretations, or failure to translate spoken language accurately can disrupt proceedings and compromise the integrity of a case.

7. Lack of Accountability and Oversight

When an interpreter makes an error, they can be questioned and held accountable. AI, on the other hand, offers no such recourse. If an AI-powered translation tool produces an inaccurate interpretation, there is no clear path to accountability, making it an unreliable tool in legal environments.

Why Human Interpreters Are the Only Viable Option

To ensure accurate and ethical interpretation in legal settings, attorneys and courts must rely on professional human interpreters. Unlike AI, certified legal interpreters:

  • Undergo rigorous training in legal terminology and procedures.
  • Maintain ethical standards, ensuring neutrality and confidentiality.
  • Adapt to complex legal discourse, cultural contexts, and regional dialects.
  • Are accountable for their interpretations, ensuring reliability and accuracy.

While AI translation tools have their place in general language translation and business applications, they are wholly inadequate for legal depositions and courtroom proceedings. The stakes in legal cases are too high to rely on technology that cannot guarantee accuracy, context comprehension, or ethical responsibility. To protect the integrity of the legal system, courts and legal professionals must continue to depend on trained human interpreters who can provide the precision, cultural understanding, and accountability that AI cannot.

For legal professionals handling multilingual cases, investing in qualified legal interpreters is not just best practice—it is essential for justice.

Court Reporters and the Bully Brigade in the Digital Age

Cyberbullying isn’t just a problem among teenagers—it has seeped into professional industries, including court reporting. Within online forums and social media groups designed for networking and support, some court reporters have formed a “Bully Brigade,” using their platforms to scrutinize, belittle, and ostracize their peers. The safety of a keyboard has emboldened certain individuals to wield power and control through words, creating an environment where professionals face hostility from within their own ranks. This article examines how cyberbullying affects the court reporting community, the motivations behind it, and strategies to combat this troubling trend.

The Rise of the “Bully Brigade”

The anonymity and distance provided by social media have made it easier for individuals to engage in behavior they might avoid in face-to-face interactions. The court reporting industry, known for its rigorous standards and high-pressure work, has seen an increase in online bullying that stems from personal insecurities, competition, and the need to assert dominance.

1. Power and Control in Online Spaces

Social media has given certain individuals a platform to assert their authority over others, often by dismissing differing opinions, attacking work methods, or belittling those they perceive as less experienced. The ability to control conversations, silence dissenting voices, and publicly critique others has created a toxic atmosphere where many hesitate to participate for fear of backlash.

2. Professional Insecurity and Gatekeeping

Some members of the community use social media to reinforce a hierarchy within the profession, deciding who is “worthy” of respect based on arbitrary standards. This type of gatekeeping leads to exclusion, with newer or less traditional court reporters feeling unwelcome in discussions that should be constructive and educational.

3. The Looseness of Words Behind a Screen

Many individuals who engage in online bullying might never act the same way in person. The lack of immediate consequences allows people to type things they would never say face-to-face. This disconnect between digital and real-world interactions has fueled an increase in unfiltered criticism, personal attacks, and unprofessional conduct.

4. Miscommunication and Escalation

Text-based communication lacks tone and context, leading to misunderstandings that can quickly spiral out of control. A simple disagreement can turn into a heated argument, with participants misinterpreting intentions and responding defensively. This escalation contributes to the growing divide within the profession and discourages healthy discussions.

Navigating the Challenges: Solutions and Strategies

To combat cyberbullying while maintaining the benefits of online networking, court reporters must take active steps toward fostering a more supportive and professional environment.

1. Encouraging Respectful Communication

Court reporters should approach online discussions with the same professionalism they would in person. Thoughtful, respectful engagement can help set a standard for how industry professionals interact on digital platforms.

2. Creating Positive Online Communities

Rather than participating in toxic discussions, court reporters can create and engage in groups that prioritize mentorship, collaboration, and support. Moderators of professional forums should establish clear guidelines to prevent bullying and promote respectful discourse.

3. Holding Bullies Accountable

If a colleague is engaging in online bullying, others should not hesitate to call out unprofessional behavior. Reporting harmful content, refusing to engage with toxic individuals, and encouraging accountability can help curb the spread of cyberbullying.

4. Fostering Inclusivity

Instead of gatekeeping, experienced professionals should focus on mentorship and guidance. Welcoming different perspectives and acknowledging that there is no single “right” way to approach the profession can create a more inclusive and productive community.

5. Recognizing the Impact of Words

Understanding that words have consequences, even online, is crucial. Court reporters should think before they post, considering whether their words contribute positively to the discussion or simply tear others down.

The Future of Court Reporting in an Online World

The court reporting profession thrives when its members uplift and support each other rather than tear each other down. The rise of the “Bully Brigade” highlights the dangers of unchecked online hostility, but by fostering professionalism, accountability, and respect, the industry can overcome these challenges.

Moving forward, court reporters must remember that behind every screen is a person deserving of respect. By choosing collaboration over conflict and professionalism over pettiness, the community can ensure a healthier, more supportive environment for all its members.

Social media has changed the way court reporters interact, offering both opportunities and challenges. The rise of cyberbullying within the profession underscores the need for industry-wide efforts to promote respect and constructive dialogue. Through education, mentorship, and ethical engagement, court reporters can protect the integrity of their profession while fostering a culture of support and professionalism. The future of court reporting depends not on who can shout the loudest online, but on who is willing to build a stronger, more united community.

A Court Reporter’s Guide to Navigating Difficult Attorneys

As court reporters, we are trained professionals dedicated to ensuring an accurate record of proceedings. However, despite our clear role, there are always attorneys who challenge our authority, ignore protocol, and make our job unnecessarily difficult. If you’ve encountered attorneys who dismiss your instructions or blatantly disregard the rules of remote proceedings, you are not alone. Here’s how to handle these situations while maintaining professionalism and control.

1. Establish Authority Early

The key to a smooth proceeding is setting expectations from the start. At the beginning of any deposition or hearing, clearly state the ground rules. For remote proceedings, remind participants:

  • The session should be treated as if it were in-person.
  • All participants must turn their cameras on (if required by the jurisdiction or judge).
  • Speaking one at a time is essential to ensure a clear and accurate record.
  • Any objections or concerns should be addressed in an orderly manner, not through cross-talk or dismissiveness.

2. Address Issues Firmly but Professionally

When attorneys dismiss your directions, remain composed and stand your ground. Here are a few responses you can use:

  • Attorney: “I can hear her fine.”
    You: “I understand, but I need to hear her clearly as I am responsible for the official record. Please have her speak up or move closer to the microphone.”
  • Attorney: “No, she doesn’t need to turn her camera on.”
    You: “For the integrity of the record, all participants are expected to have their cameras on, per standard procedure. If there’s an issue, we can clarify with the judge.”
  • Attorney ignores repeated instructions.
    You: “For the record, I have requested [participant] to [speak louder/turn on the camera/stop cross-talking], and the request has not been complied with. Let’s proceed accordingly.”

3. Leverage Judicial Authority When Needed

If an attorney refuses to comply with procedural norms, do not hesitate to escalate. Judges have repeatedly reminded attorneys that remote depositions should follow the same decorum as in-person proceedings. If necessary, document the refusal and raise it before the judge or presiding officer.

4. Mitigate Common Disruptions

Some of the most frustrating habits include:

  • Mumbling and covering mouths: If someone is difficult to understand, interrupt and request clarity: “For the record, I need you to speak up and avoid covering your mouth.”
  • Cross-talk: Politely but firmly say, “One at a time, please. I need to ensure each statement is accurately captured.”
  • Participants speaking over you: Assert yourself: “Excuse me, but I need to clarify something for the record before we continue.”

5. Self-Care and Professional Boundaries

Dealing with difficult attorneys can be exhausting, especially over the years. Remember:

  • You are a professional, and your role is critical—do not let dismissive behavior diminish your confidence.
  • If a particular attorney repeatedly undermines you, document the incidents for future reference.
  • Vent to your colleagues and support network—many of us experience the same challenges and can offer solidarity and advice.
  • Consider taking breaks, practicing stress management techniques, and reminding yourself why you love this career despite the challenges.

Final Thoughts

Court reporting is a demanding yet rewarding profession, but dealing with difficult attorneys can test anyone’s patience. By setting clear expectations, standing firm, and utilizing judicial support when necessary, we can ensure that the integrity of the record remains intact.

At the end of the day, we don’t need to tolerate unnecessary disruptions—but we do need to handle them with professionalism and confidence. Stay strong, court reporters—you are essential to the legal system!

Securing the Future of Court Reporting with a Responsible Charge Statement

Adopting a Responsible Charge Statement (similar to what the Society of Professional Engineers have implemented) could be an impactful and strategic move for the court reporting profession. This type of statement or standard would clarify the legal and ethical responsibilities of a court reporter, helping to further professionalize and legitimize the role.

Here’s why it could be a powerful step for court reporting:

1. Clear Accountability and Professionalism

  • A Responsible Charge Statement would help to define the scope of a court reporter’s responsibilities, ensuring that they are recognized as the primary authority on their work and can be held accountable for its accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity.
  • This clarity would elevate the profession in the eyes of the legal and business communities, much like it has for engineers.

2. Enhanced Trust and Credibility

  • Court reporters are tasked with documenting critical, often sensitive legal information. A Responsible Charge Statement would reinforce their role as trusted professionals who ensure the accuracy and integrity of the record. This could be key in an era where the public is increasingly skeptical of technology and automation, ensuring that court reporters are seen as irreplaceable in maintaining the accuracy of the legal record.

3. Standardization of Practices

  • Such a statement could be part of a broader initiative to standardize practices across the profession, including expectations for ethical conduct, the safeguarding of confidential information, and the quality of the transcripts. This would ensure consistency across regions and states, strengthening the profession’s reputation.

4. Legal Protection and Liability

  • By adopting a Responsible Charge Statement, court reporters may benefit from legal protection and clearer liability guidelines, particularly in situations where there might be disputes over the accuracy or integrity of a transcript. This could help clarify when they are liable for errors and when they are protected by their professional standards.

5. Distinguishing Court Reporters from Automation

  • With increasing use of AI and speech recognition technologies, having a clear Responsible Charge Statement could distinguish human court reporters from the automated systems that may not be able to provide the same level of accuracy or legal accountability. It would reinforce that court reporters are not just passive transcribers but highly skilled professionals with an irreplaceable role in the legal process.

6. Promoting Professional Development

  • The statement could also be linked to professional development and continuing education requirements, ensuring court reporters are always up-to-date with industry changes and the ethical standards expected in their work. This continuous learning would support the profession’s credibility in a rapidly changing technological landscape.

Next Steps

Adopting this type of statement could be spearheaded by court reporting associations, in collaboration with regulatory bodies and legal professionals, to ensure that it fits within existing legal frameworks. It would require an alignment with legal standards, professional development programs, and a comprehensive public relations effort to ensure widespread acceptance within the industry.

In conclusion, a Responsible Charge Statement could significantly strengthen the court reporting profession by providing a clear, accountable, and professional framework that enhances both its credibility and its ability to adapt to future challenges. It could go a long way in securing the profession’s long-term survival.

The Fight to Preserve Human Court Reporters

Subscribe to continue reading

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

Regulating Technology in Court Reporting

The rapid advancement of technology is outpacing our ability to manage and regulate it effectively, posing risks to public health, safety, and welfare. In the legal field, court reporting stands as a pillar of accuracy and reliability, ensuring an official and verifiable record of proceedings. However, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and automatic speech recognition (ASR) threatens to undermine the integrity of this critical function. These technologies are not yet capable of meeting the high standards required in legal settings, where even minor errors can have profound consequences. As such, it is imperative to regulate AI and ASR strictly to prevent their infiltration into court reporting and protect the public interest.

The Risks of AI and ASR in Court Reporting

AI and ASR technologies, while advancing rapidly, are fundamentally flawed when applied in high-stakes legal environments. These systems lack the nuanced understanding required to accurately transcribe complex legal terminology, dialects, accents, and contextual speech variations. Misinterpretations, dropped words, and incorrect attributions could alter the meaning of testimonies, jeopardizing fair trials and due process. Unlike professional court reporters, AI and ASR systems cannot seek clarification, discern tone, or recognize non-verbal cues that are essential for an accurate legal record.

Furthermore, these technologies introduce serious ethical and security concerns. AI-driven systems require vast amounts of data to function, raising questions about data privacy and the potential misuse of sensitive legal information. ASR software, often developed by private companies, lacks transparency regarding its algorithms, accuracy rates, and bias mitigation measures. Without stringent oversight, reliance on AI and ASR could compromise the integrity of court records, eroding public trust in the judicial system.

The Need for Regulation and Prohibition

To safeguard the accuracy and reliability of legal transcripts, it is essential to establish clear regulatory barriers preventing the adoption of AI and ASR in court reporting. The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) should advocate for laws that explicitly prohibit the use of these technologies in judicial settings, ensuring that certified human court reporters remain the sole custodians of legal transcripts. Policymakers must recognize that court reporting is not a field where automation can replace human expertise without endangering justice.

Regulations should include:

  • A Ban on AI and ASR in Court Reporting: Legislation must prohibit the use of AI and ASR for creating official court records, ensuring that only certified human court reporters are entrusted with this responsibility.
  • Strict Accuracy Standards: Any attempt to introduce automated transcription services into legal settings should be met with rigorous accuracy benchmarks that AI and ASR cannot currently meet.
  • Transparency Requirements for Tech Companies: If AI or ASR providers attempt to enter the legal space, they must be required to disclose error rates, training data sources, and bias-mitigation measures, proving beyond doubt that their technology does not compromise legal integrity.
  • Severe Penalties for Non-Compliance: Courts, legal professionals, and transcription providers should face strict penalties for violating regulations that prohibit AI and ASR from replacing human court reporters.

Applying the Concept of ‘Responsible Charge’ to Court Reporting

The concept of “Responsible Charge,” long upheld in the engineering profession, can serve as a model for maintaining professional integrity in court reporting. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) defines “Responsible Charge” as the direct control and personal supervision of engineering work, requiring licensed engineers to be actively engaged in all stages of a project to ensure adherence to ethical and professional standards.

This model aligns closely with the role of court reporters, who bear full responsibility for the accuracy, confidentiality, and completeness of legal transcripts. Just as a licensed engineer cannot merely review work post-completion, a certified court reporter must exercise oversight throughout the entire reporting process, from the initial transcription to the final certified document. This hands-on engagement ensures that court records meet the highest standards of accuracy and reliability.

The Role of Certified Professional Court Reporters

Certified professional court reporters are irreplaceable in ensuring accurate, unbiased, and secure legal records. Unlike AI, human court reporters:

  • Have a deep understanding of legal terminology and context.
  • Can ask for clarification when speech is unclear or ambiguous.
  • Ensure confidentiality and ethical handling of sensitive court records.
  • Provide real-time transcription with an unmatched level of accuracy and reliability.

By formally adopting a “Responsible Charge” model, the court reporting industry can reinforce professional accountability and protect against the encroachment of AI and ASR. This framework affirms that:

  • Court reporters maintain direct oversight over their work, ensuring that no automated system compromises the integrity of legal transcripts.
  • They are actively engaged in all aspects of the reporting process, including quality control and certification of transcripts.
  • They commit to professional development to stay ahead of evolving legal and linguistic challenges.

The Benefits of Implementing ‘Responsible Charge’ in Court Reporting

  • Enhanced Accountability: Establishing a formal “Responsible Charge” framework ensures that certified court reporters maintain full responsibility for their work, preventing reliance on unverified automated tools.
  • Increased Public Trust: Reinforcing the role of human oversight reassures legal professionals and the public that court records remain accurate, unbiased, and secure.
  • Stronger Ethical Standards: A “Responsible Charge” model aligns court reporting with other highly regulated professions, ensuring that ethical considerations take precedence over cost-cutting automation trends.
  • Improved Legal Safeguards: With direct professional involvement, the risks of transcript errors or misinterpretations due to AI-driven mistakes are eliminated, preserving the integrity of the judicial system.

Conclusion

AI and ASR technologies are not suitable replacements for human court reporters. Their inability to meet the high accuracy and ethical standards required in legal settings makes them a threat to justice rather than an asset. By formally adopting a “Responsible Charge” model, the court reporting profession can strengthen its ethical standards, improve accountability, and reinforce public trust in the judicial system. The National Court Reporters Association must work aggressively to regulate and restrict AI and ASR from infiltrating the legal industry, ensuring that human expertise remains at the core of legal transcription. Through proactive engagement and unwavering professional responsibility, court reporters can continue to serve as the gold standard for accurate and impartial legal records.

The FBI’s Battle Against Transnational Crime and the Shadowy Operations of Steno Nexus

A fictional short story

In the ever-expanding fight against transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) faces a daunting challenge. These groups operate across borders, using sophisticated methods to evade detection while engaging in illicit activities such as drug trafficking, human smuggling, and cybercrime. The FBI, along with its global partners, continuously adapts to counter these threats, but the task remains formidable due to jurisdictional barriers, legal complexities, and the evolving tactics of criminals.

Amid these high-stakes efforts, some criminal enterprises have found ways to disguise their operations under the guise of legitimate businesses. One such entity is Steno Nexus, a seemingly reputable organization in the legal industry. Founded by the enigmatic entrepreneur Serena Vale, Steno Nexus presents itself as a hub for court reporting professionals. However, beneath the surface, it operates as a transnational criminal network that launders money and facilitates illicit activities under the cloak of legal credibility.

The FBI’s Struggle Against Transnational Crime

Transnational criminal organizations present one of the greatest threats to global security. These groups have mastered the art of circumventing law enforcement through complex networks, encrypted communications, and financial laundering schemes. Unlike traditional domestic criminal enterprises, TCOs exploit gaps in international law and thrive in regions where corruption allows them to operate with minimal resistance.

The FBI, in collaboration with agencies such as Interpol and Europol, has developed specialized task forces to tackle these organizations. However, several challenges complicate their efforts:

  • Jurisdictional Issues: Many TCO members reside in countries that refuse to extradite criminals, limiting the FBI’s reach.
  • Advanced Criminal Tactics: Use of the dark web, cryptocurrencies, and offshore accounts makes tracking financial transactions difficult.
  • Corruption and Safe Havens: Some governments are complicit or lack the infrastructure to combat TCOs effectively.
  • Legal and Diplomatic Barriers: International cooperation can be slow, requiring extensive negotiations and mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs).

Despite these obstacles, the FBI has had notable successes in dismantling networks involved in drug trafficking, cybercrime, and human trafficking. Yet, every victory is met with a new challenge as criminals adapt their operations.

Steno Nexus: A Criminal Empire in Disguise

Serena Vale’s Steno Nexus is a prime example of how criminal organizations exploit legal industries to facilitate their illicit dealings. On the surface, Steno Nexus appears to be an influential company dedicated to advancing court reporting and legal transcription services. It regularly hosts events attended by attorneys, judges, and legal professionals, positioning itself as a trusted institution within the justice system.

However, behind the scenes, Steno Nexus functions as a sophisticated laundering operation. Vast amounts of illicit funds flow through the organization’s events, sponsorships, and business transactions, effectively cleaning dirty money and making it appear legitimate. Additionally, Steno Nexus has been linked to international criminal syndicates, using its network to facilitate communication and logistical support for illicit enterprises.

The company’s success in evading law enforcement scrutiny lies in its ability to blend seamlessly with the legal profession. By cultivating relationships with respected legal professionals, Steno Nexus shields itself from suspicion, making it difficult for investigators to pinpoint illicit activities. This strategic positioning has allowed the organization to expand its reach and influence undetected.

The FBI’s Pursuit of Steno Nexus

While Steno Nexus continues to operate under a veneer of legitimacy, federal investigators have begun to unravel the organization’s shadowy dealings. The FBI has launched a covert investigation into the company’s financial records, seeking to trace illicit funds back to criminal enterprises.

  • Financial Forensics: Investigators are scrutinizing financial transactions linked to Steno Nexus events, identifying suspicious fund transfers and offshore accounts.
  • Undercover Operatives: Law enforcement has deployed undercover agents to infiltrate Steno Nexus’s inner circle and gather intelligence on its illicit operations.
  • Surveillance and Wiretaps: FBI operatives are monitoring key members of the organization, analyzing communications that could expose criminal connections.

Despite these efforts, Steno Nexus remains a formidable adversary. The organization’s leaders are adept at covering their tracks, and legal loopholes continue to provide them with protection. However, as evidence mounts, the noose is tightening around Serena Vale and her empire.

The Future of Legal and Law Enforcement Collaboration

As criminal organizations become more sophisticated in exploiting legitimate industries, law enforcement agencies must adapt their strategies. The FBI’s investigation into Steno Nexus serves as a case study in the challenges of dismantling embedded criminal enterprises.

With technology playing a growing role in both law enforcement and legal proceedings, there is potential for even greater synergy between the two fields. The integration of AI-assisted financial tracking, blockchain for secure recordkeeping, and advanced forensic accounting can enhance the ability to detect and disrupt illicit activities.

However, while technology is a powerful tool, it cannot replace the expertise and dedication of investigative professionals. Serena Vale’s empire may have flourished in secrecy for years, but as the FBI tightens its grip, the fall of Steno Nexus may become one of the most significant takedowns in modern law enforcement history.

Conclusion

The fight against transnational criminal organizations is far from over, and the FBI continues to navigate immense challenges in its pursuit of justice. Criminal enterprises like Steno Nexus demonstrate how deeply illicit activities can be embedded within legitimate industries, making detection and prosecution even more difficult.

As the investigation unfolds, the case of Steno Nexus underscores the importance of collaboration between legal professionals and law enforcement. Only through diligence, innovation, and relentless pursuit of justice can the tide be turned against those who exploit the system for criminal gain. The fall of Serena Vale and her network may just be the beginning of a larger war against hidden criminal empires operating in plain sight.

(*This is a fictional short story. None of the people or companies mentioned in this story are real.)

If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie again!

If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie again! It seems like the court reporters in this industry are living in an alternate reality with plotlines that seem to jump out of the hit reality HBO series Pretty Little Liars, with episodes entitled “Reality Bites Me,” “Monsters in the End,” “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” “The Perfect Storm,” “Salt Meets Wound,” “The New Normal,” “Be Careful What you Wish 4,” and “Know Your Frenemies.” Instead of characters who are in a conspiracy to cover up for the mysterious disappearance of a friend, there is a sinister real-world plot to cover up a lie being perpetrated on unsuspecting litigants, attorneys, judges, and court reporters in the legal industry.

“We only use them on public hearings and jobs you don’t want,” they said. Showing a transcript from March 16, 2022, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, reported by a Notary Public, from Atkinson Baker, A Veritext Company.

A Web of Deception

What was once a profession built on integrity and impartiality has been slowly infiltrated by a corporate culture that prioritizes profit over the truth. Court reporters, who are expected to be the guardians of an accurate record, are now finding themselves at the mercy of corporate entities more concerned with cost-cutting than quality control. The industry is increasingly being dominated by large firms that outsource work to individuals with minimal qualifications, replacing highly trained stenographers with digital recordings and uncertified typists who lack the legal knowledge and precision necessary for accurate transcription.

The result? A system rife with errors, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications. Transcripts are riddled with inaccuracies, key testimonies are omitted or distorted, and in many cases, the final records do not match what was actually said in the courtroom. This has led to appeals being denied, cases being unfairly decided, and a loss of trust in the very institutions meant to uphold justice.

The Corporate Takeover

Traditionally, court reporters were independent professionals or worked for small agencies, ensuring a high level of accountability. However, in the past decade, large corporate entities such as Veritext, US Legal Support, and Magna Legal Services have aggressively acquired smaller firms, consolidating the industry under their control. Their business model prioritizes volume and cost-cutting, often at the expense of accuracy and professionalism.

One of the biggest concerns is the widespread use of uncertified digital reporters who simply record proceedings and send them off to be transcribed by low-paid overseas workers or artificial intelligence programs. This shift has introduced numerous issues, from technical malfunctions to grossly inaccurate transcripts. Despite these problems, companies continue to market this approach as a “cost-effective alternative” to traditional stenographic reporting.

The Lie That Keeps on Spinning

The deception is not just limited to the quality of transcripts. Many court reporting firms have been caught misleading attorneys and judges about their services. They claim to provide professional, certified court reporters when in reality, they are using unlicensed notaries, digital recorders, or inadequately trained personnel. When confronted, their response is often a carefully crafted PR spin, insisting that these methods are “industry standard” and “compliant with legal requirements.”

Attorneys who request traditional stenographers are frequently misled, only discovering after the fact that their proceedings were recorded rather than transcribed in real time. By then, it is often too late to correct the errors that inevitably arise in the final transcript. This bait-and-switch tactic not only undermines the integrity of the legal system but also places attorneys in precarious positions when they unknowingly rely on flawed records.

The Consequences of Inaccuracy

For those unfamiliar with the legal process, the impact of inaccurate transcripts may not be immediately apparent. However, consider the following real-world consequences:

  1. Wrongful Convictions: If a criminal trial transcript contains errors, misquotations, or missing testimony, it can lead to wrongful convictions or prevent legitimate appeals from moving forward.
  2. Civil Litigation Disasters: In high-stakes lawsuits, a single mistranscription can change the outcome of a case, costing businesses and individuals millions of dollars.
  3. Lost Careers and Reputations: Attorneys rely on transcripts for depositions, trial preparation, and appeals. An inaccurate transcript can discredit a lawyer’s argument, damage their reputation, and, in some cases, lead to professional malpractice claims.
  4. Undermining Public Trust: When litigants and the public lose confidence in the legal process, the fundamental principles of justice and due process are at risk.

A Call to Action

The legal community cannot afford to ignore this growing crisis. Attorneys, judges, and policymakers must take a stand against the corporate takeover of court reporting and demand transparency, accountability, and adherence to professional standards. Some potential steps include:

  • Legislative Action: Passing laws that require certified stenographic reporters for legal proceedings and prohibit the use of unlicensed digital recorders in court.
  • Industry Oversight: Establishing stricter regulations and enforcement mechanisms to hold court reporting firms accountable for misrepresentations and substandard services.
  • Attorney Awareness: Lawyers must be vigilant about the court reporting services they use, explicitly requesting certified stenographers and refusing to accept digital recordings without proper oversight.
  • Consumer Advocacy: Encouraging litigants and businesses to demand transparency in the selection of court reporting services, ensuring that they receive accurate and reliable transcripts.

Final Thoughts

The legal system relies on the accuracy and integrity of the record, and court reporters have long been the unsung heroes ensuring that justice is preserved. However, the creeping influence of profit-driven corporations threatens to erode the profession’s integrity, turning a once-respected field into a race to the bottom.

If at first you don’t succeed, the answer is not to lie, lie again. It is time to expose the truth, hold bad actors accountable, and restore faith in the court reporting industry. The legal community, and indeed the principles of justice itself, depend on it.