Reader comments
Machines to do court reporting
53 comments | Read story
xscribe | 8:46 a.m. June 22, 2009
It's obvious to me that you're one of those attorneys, if you really
were an attorney, that wanted to hire the cheapest person you could find. I
would question whether you actually had a certified court reporter, and the
prices you quoted are just plain false. I can tell you my rate right now: $25
an hour for the typing, with people talking around 250 words per minute. And
the company I work for gets about 3.25 per page, and then I get approximately 70
percent of that final bill. Let's say I do an hour deposition, which is
about 40 pages: 25 and hour, around 5.00 a page for 2 copies. One hour for the
depo, plus 1/2 hour for setup and breakdown, plus drive time to the depo, at
least an hour of editing, then an hour of proofreading, and then sending it out
and paying for an actual proofreader to read it, then putting in corrections,
printing a final product and getting it to production, then delivery charges to
get it to demanding attorneys who want it right away. Now compare my net pay to
your net pay.
Digital System Works | 8:47 a.m. June 22, 2009
We have a digital system in the Arizona Courts, all court prceedings are
recorded, both audio and video, and if you want a copy of the hearing it cost
$20 for a CD of the recording, or you can have a transcript made if you need it.
In my 15 years of practice I have never had a problem with it.
Comments continue below
Mike in Texas | 8:52 a.m. June 22, 2009
This will be a good savings measure for the Utah Courts. I have worked with and
been responsible for electronic recording devices used in courts since 1970, in
Alaska, Massachusetts, and Akron, Ohio. While traditional reporters will never
admit to this, transcripts produced from these recordings are every bit as
accurate, if not more so, than what a typical reporter does. Recording
technology has improved over the years to permit simultaneous voice separation,
speech slowing without pitch changes, and digital recording which makes the
recorded record even clearer and more reliable. I will tell you from experience
that even the best reporter does not take a "verbatim" record. Because
if this fact many reporters use recording devices as a back up to the stenotape
record that they make.
Make it so... | 8:55 a.m. June 22, 2009
This seems a nobrainer. As long as the cost of the equipment is less than hiring
a person to do the job, it should be done.
Re: hardmanb | 8:55 a.m. June 22, 2009
You know what else is a "rip off"? Attorneys fees.
Anonymous | 9:10 a.m. June 22, 2009
very few people who attempt to become court reporters make it. It is not the
slow, enunciated, nontechnical proceedings that is a problem. It is the fast,
technical, slurred, speaking more than one at a time with heavy accents that
cause the problem. That is not a once-in-a-while thing. It happens frequently.
We are the most efficent voice to text method. We are so good at it, we can do
it in realtime. It cost a lot more for a lawyer to review a audio tape or a
videotape than pay 3.50 a page. The are charging around 300 to 400 an hour.
You do the math. This is not a new idea. It doesn't work. Just hope that
your liberty or money is not on the line and you have to depend on this type of
review of your proceedings.
Anonymous | 9:37 a.m. June 22, 2009
My kudos to the court reporters. I have had to transcribe audio recordings and
believe me it is not always easy, especially when you have two or three people
trying to talk at the same time, people talking super fast and slurring their
words. Yes, digital and audio records might save money but be sure it is
working right, or you might just lose important records needed for appeals. I
know of one case where the court lost the tapes. The testimony given at the
first trial was not available to prove perjury.
Hey, hardmanb | 9:56 a.m. June 22, 2009
I used to work for an attorney and their fees are the ridiculous ones. Call
your attorney to check on the status of your case -- spend 10 minutes on the
phone and he bills it at 15 or 20 minutes. You think he's doing all the
paperwork -- most motions are fill in the blank with the secretary doing most of
the work and all he has to do is sign his name. Court reporters are
hardworking, in the trenches, people and a valuable asset.
Scott | 10:54 a.m. June 22, 2009
How about replacing the judges with machines... Eliminate bias and corruption.
City Clerk | 1:58 p.m. June 22, 2009
Scott - LOL! I realize we are in a digital age and technology is far superior
to what it was 30 years ago, however, there is a lot to be said for paper
records. I realize storage space is a pain, but how will these digital formats
be stored? Will they become obsolete in 50 years like the old floppy disks?
I have done transcription too and it isn't the easiest. Unfortunately I don't think there will be a noticeable enough problem to go back from the digital only recordings.
I have done transcription too and it isn't the easiest. Unfortunately I don't think there will be a noticeable enough problem to go back from the digital only recordings.
Anonymous | 2:42 p.m. June 22, 2009
The state will get a bargain because they are already paying thier attorneys no
matter what, however, the people who have to hire private attorneys to watch a
digital recording to get to a specific query will have to pay 200-500 per hour
instead of turning to the appropriate page. This just transfers the cost to the
individuals that have to hire attorneys.
pitsteno | 7:07 a.m. June 23, 2009
The comment about decorum really strikes me. I've transcribed these
things, and I can tell you, when there is no reporter in the courtroom, it
devolves to a shouting match - he who talks loudest (or coughs, or sneezes) is
what's being recorded. No do-overs.
My transcription rate for these things, when requested to to them, is DOUBLE my reporting fee. How is that saving money?
Good luck to the Utah reporters. Perhaps they should all decline to transcribe. Then see how the transcripts turn out, typed by nonlegal professionals, perhaps even nonnative English speakers.
Oh, who is monitoring these things, anyway? The clerks? You just added to their job description. If they were smart, they'd request a pay increase.
My transcription rate for these things, when requested to to them, is DOUBLE my reporting fee. How is that saving money?
Good luck to the Utah reporters. Perhaps they should all decline to transcribe. Then see how the transcripts turn out, typed by nonlegal professionals, perhaps even nonnative English speakers.
Oh, who is monitoring these things, anyway? The clerks? You just added to their job description. If they were smart, they'd request a pay increase.
Transcriptionist | 6:19 p.m. June 23, 2009
Here's the thing: IF court reporters wuld ask for repeats or
clarifications, then their records might come close to what can be transcribed
from digital recordings. But they won't ask. They're afraid to
interrupt. Read some of the court reporter forums online. Many of the posts
are reporters asking other reporters to help the guess what was said in a
proceeding when they weren't even present. Transcriptions from digital
media are more accurate, including all the words, verbatim. The only drawback
to digital transcription is identifying the speakers, and hopefully that will
somebody be solved by video courtrooms. Courtroom steno reporters have
tremendous egos to think they can get it all, understand accents flying by them,
etc. etc. Hogwash. They go home and listen to the recording and guess at it,
just like a transcriptionist does. The difference is they have no idea what
audio technology is capable of these days, so their sound isn't nearly as
good.
Transcriptionist | 6:33 p.m. June 23, 2009
Anonymous, you're living in a dream world. How many steno reporters can do
realtime? LOL And what gives them super powers to be able to understand heavy
accents and multiple voices? Reporters' egos and greed have brought them
to where many find themselves now, unemployed.
samsonight@comcast.net | 12:00 p.m. June 24, 2009
Transcriptionist: Funny, if you are working in Utah as a transcriptionist for
the courts, you get paid the same amount as the reporters, but then again
haven't had the training. Now who has the ego? Or should I say bias? No
wonder you might have difficulty seeing the difference that a reporter can make.
Transcriptionist | 6:03 a.m. June 26, 2009
You're right, samsonight. I don't have the training. I have a
pre-law degree and 25 years of legal experience, as opposed to to many reporters
I used to work for who couldn't spell judgment or comprehend compex
punctuation rules.
Mygreenlefteye | 10:53 p.m. June 26, 2009
Transcriptionist,
Such venom for a typist! Were you one of the thousands to not make it through court reporting school?
Unfortunately, Utah will have to learn, as Florida did, the hard way. Just wait until a convicted felon is set free on appeal after the discovery that the digital record was of such poor quality that it was rendered unusable. The reviewing court had no choice but to let the convicted felon walk.
Where is the savings when you now have to purchase expensive equipment, man the equipment, and then transcribe a mess? This makes for a dubious record, rife with excess labor, when the job could have and should have been done by one professional reporter who has his/her own equipment, knows the laws and lingo, and brings a wealth of common sense and knowledge.
And no, I'm not a court reporter, but I wish I were.
Such venom for a typist! Were you one of the thousands to not make it through court reporting school?
Unfortunately, Utah will have to learn, as Florida did, the hard way. Just wait until a convicted felon is set free on appeal after the discovery that the digital record was of such poor quality that it was rendered unusable. The reviewing court had no choice but to let the convicted felon walk.
Where is the savings when you now have to purchase expensive equipment, man the equipment, and then transcribe a mess? This makes for a dubious record, rife with excess labor, when the job could have and should have been done by one professional reporter who has his/her own equipment, knows the laws and lingo, and brings a wealth of common sense and knowledge.
And no, I'm not a court reporter, but I wish I were.
Anonymous | 5:46 p.m. June 27, 2009
Nope, never went to court reporting school, but I spent a lot of years as a
paralegal finding mistakes in their transcripts and proving to them that things
I had on a little secret tape recorder (required by my attorneys, always) were
NOT as they came out in a transcript. Venom? Not hardly. But I do rspect the
record, and it angers me when egos get in the way of making an accurate one. If
I were on trial, I would much rather have an educated person like me listening
repeatedly to four-track audio to discern what was said than being at the mercy
of what a reproter thought they got. I've done it too many times.
I've seen so many mistakes in steno when compared the recording that
I've learned to be afraid of what they "think" they're
getting.
And I'm not a typist. I'm a legal transcriptionist. There's a world of difference, namely education and experience. I am NOT saying any stay-at-home mom can do what I do. That's what I get paid a lot more than newbies who fall by the wayside.
And I'm not a typist. I'm a legal transcriptionist. There's a world of difference, namely education and experience. I am NOT saying any stay-at-home mom can do what I do. That's what I get paid a lot more than newbies who fall by the wayside.
A Court Reporter | 8:49 a.m. June 30, 2009
The reporting profession is like any other profession, some good ones, some bad
ones. I know the reporters that do realtime writing are very good and I believe
there aren't many of those. As a reporter for many years I've
transcribed some of the recordings from court for attys. and must say, I would
never want my life situation depending on those.
As reporters, those of us who want to be the best we can be, try the hardest the we can to get everything said. As far as us being paid too much? When I think of the many years of walking into situations in a deposition and not knowing what was coming, whether expert testimony to arguing attys., to struggling to hear someone and/or understand an accent, we've never been paid enough due to the stress we face. Also, the many, many, many nights and weekends of our personal lives we've given up to get transcripts finished, we've still never been paid enough for that.
Knowing what I know now, I certainly would have done something else with a regular paycheck and benefits in order to have a life.
As reporters, those of us who want to be the best we can be, try the hardest the we can to get everything said. As far as us being paid too much? When I think of the many years of walking into situations in a deposition and not knowing what was coming, whether expert testimony to arguing attys., to struggling to hear someone and/or understand an accent, we've never been paid enough due to the stress we face. Also, the many, many, many nights and weekends of our personal lives we've given up to get transcripts finished, we've still never been paid enough for that.
Knowing what I know now, I certainly would have done something else with a regular paycheck and benefits in order to have a life.
Vegas Reporter | 11:09 a.m. July 2, 2009
I think the "former" Utah reporters should just say "no" to
transcribing from a digital recording. You went to school to be a court
reporter, not a transcriber!!! You paid all that money for schooling to learn a
skill that is not easy and takes a unique person like yourself to hone it. Let
the so-called transcriptionists (we all know who they are) do the job and get
swamped with all these transcript requests and let's see how fast they can
turn them around and what quality they are. I feel for you Utah reporters...I
was a reporter laid off from the State of CO back in 2003 because of budget
constraints. They used ER for a while until they hired back court reporters a
few years later!!! Watch..it'll happen in Utah, too. It does in every
state that lays off reporters for ER. The state numbers-crunching people look
at it for a year at a time, not in the long term. By next year, they'll
see the errors of their ways!!!
Anonymous | 11:11 a.m. July 2, 2009
Thanks to digital recording, those who are (were) court reporters and have
struggled and persevered to get through court reporting school are now standing
in unemployment lines unable to feed their family, pay for their house and pay
their bills. They worked tirelessly for nothing!
Why don't we just automate the legal practice and cut out lawyers' jobs? If we automate everything, everyone's job, why do we even need human beings to do anything for a living? Where's the humanity? We're creating a monster that will be everyone's doom in the end. Why can't anybody see that?!
Why don't we just automate the legal practice and cut out lawyers' jobs? If we automate everything, everyone's job, why do we even need human beings to do anything for a living? Where's the humanity? We're creating a monster that will be everyone's doom in the end. Why can't anybody see that?!
New Mexico Courts | 11:30 a.m. July 2, 2009
I work for district court in New Mexico and we have digital recording equipment
in our courtrooms. Since there is a shortage of court reporters, the state
relies on monitors to record proceedings. These monitors are often clerks, as
me and my other coworkers are. I've done this for 5 years and cannot
describe the many horror stories I've encountered re problems with the
digital recording method - equipment malfunctions, distorted or inaudible
recordings, microphone problems, etc. In one instance, the monitor simply
forgot to press the record button! What people forget is that all of this
equipment needs to be maintained and serviced. Just the other day, a CD got
stuck in one of the machines and no one could get a hold of support to resolve
the issue. New Mexico finally came around to their senses and realized the
multitude of problems with recordings, particularly when cases are appealed and
the recording is defective. The NM Supreme Court issued an order that every
monitor that retires is going to be replaced with a court reporter. I think
that certainly says something when NM courts are ditching the digital recording
method and going back to reporters.
samsonight@comcast.net | 11:47 a.m. July 2, 2009
The certifications are different. An attorney asks in court, "Did you say
such and such?" A certified court reporter transcript can be proof that
that is what the person said. A transcriptionist transcript can be proof that
that's what the tape appears to indicate, not knowing for sure who is
saying what. Sort of like double hearsay. A witness could claim that there are
missing sections, etc. Hey, Nixon comes to mind!
All the struggles with some saying one is better than another, when it comes down to it, a transcriptionist can only certify that that's what an audio appears to indicate, and be paid the same price that court reporters with a higher certification can seal, which court reporters were paying for their own salary and equipment that the State of Utah now has to replace with extra clerks, and audio equipment. I don't see the savings.
All the struggles with some saying one is better than another, when it comes down to it, a transcriptionist can only certify that that's what an audio appears to indicate, and be paid the same price that court reporters with a higher certification can seal, which court reporters were paying for their own salary and equipment that the State of Utah now has to replace with extra clerks, and audio equipment. I don't see the savings.
steno | 12:33 p.m. July 2, 2009
I'm a stenographer in Ireland and we recently had digital recording set up
in most of the criminal courts here. It is being run by the same company that
supplies/supplied the stenographers. The audio quality is excellent, however the
log notes are pretty poor ... some of us stenographers are having to transcribe
these digital cases for less than half of what we got before, bills need to be
paid... The main problem I can see, and know from personal experience, is being
in court as the stenographer looking at the witness or sitting right beside them
and catching those yes/no/low mumbled words that are not picked up on the audio
and sometimes even not even by the lawyers and judge, but by the stenographer
only because you are right next to them when a lawyer butts in and speaks over
their answer. This is something that is completely lost on the logger taking
down some basics, but known to be so important to a stenographer, as well all
the nodding a witness does regularly. If ever the digital system should fail I
can see this being a crucial error ...
RDR | 2:43 p.m. July 2, 2009
I'm a realtime reporter, well trained, with years of experience. I'm
a bit of a perfectionist and consequently have always been in pretty high
demand. I've always counted myself fortunate in that regard. My
colleagues and I sometimes transcribe audios from lower courts as a favor (and
it is strictly a favor, as the pay is so much less, because they take so much
longer to do). But we don't feel good about these transcripts. Frequently
I feel that we're almost committing a fraud in transcribing these audios,
making them appear as reliable as our usual transcripts, when they are
questionable. True, there are many incompetent court reporters in this country,
but I think audio technology is not replacing them with something better.
California CSR | 3:41 p.m. July 2, 2009
I don't know where the anger is coming from, from some of the typists and
transcriptionists posting here. I am a court reporter, and I am a human being.
Do I occasionally make mistakes? I'm sure I do. But I can guarantee you
that the record I make is better than the record you're going to get from
most recording devices. I struggle all the time with soft-spoken witnesses,
heavy accents, poor acoustics, etc. If I were not there to clarify what is
being said, I sure wouldn't want to have to rely on maybe what a recording
device may or may not be picking up. And I'm so angry with some of the
negativity that I'm reading regarding court reporters in these posts that
I'm just going to leave my comments at that because I am a professional,
and I don't think any further comments that I would like to make would be
appropriate.
Connecticut | 7:44 p.m. July 2, 2009
Connecticut has both court reporters and court recording monitors, but we both
sit in court during the proceedings. We have conscientious reporters and
conscientious monitors that do their jobs equally well. I fear that the
integrity of the record is being lost by electronic recording that is NOT being
monitored by a human being. You cannot accurately transcribe cold from a
recording without notes of who is saying what. Example: Judge asks a question.
Four lawyers in the room all answer at the same time. Two say yes. Two say no.
Can you really stake your life on who said what with only a one word answer as
your clue? I don't think so. The integrity of the record has been lost.
Is it absolutely imperative to know which attorney said what? The answer is
absolutely yes. No question about it. You cannot guess on who says what.
Different methods to memorialize the record is fine, but you still need a human
being to monitor the methods. And don't even get me started when someone
coughs! All the words are lost.
marge201 | 2:47 p.m. July 3, 2009
"When attorneys need a transcript, the court will turn to a list of
certified reporters, or employees of certified reporters, who will listen to the
tape, then type every word."
Clarification: the tape-recordings will be typed up by typists who weren't there. I wish the state of Utah many indiscernibles and errors resulting from the non-accountability of these "certified reporters," which I would be surprised if any certified shorthand reporter would stoop to take this work.
Shame on the state of Utah.
Clarification: the tape-recordings will be typed up by typists who weren't there. I wish the state of Utah many indiscernibles and errors resulting from the non-accountability of these "certified reporters," which I would be surprised if any certified shorthand reporter would stoop to take this work.
Shame on the state of Utah.
A Court Reporter | 12:01 p.m. July 5, 2009
I'd like to ask a general question to any of you that might know.
Have you ever heard of court reporters being sent out by an agency armed with ER equipment to record the depositon, then go back to the agency and been asked to transcribe it? Also, the reporter is paid/reduced to a transcriptionist and the agency markets this as a way to keep reporter costs down to attorneys. I actually know of an agency doing this and feel it is inexcusable!
I also heard that NCRA actually had ER equipment at a seminar. I thought they were supposed to be on the side of the reporter?!
I applaud the states that have seen the error of their ways and brought back the reporters. In places where there is a shortage, maybe if it were well advertised there might be some reporters who would consider moving to take the job.
Have you ever heard of court reporters being sent out by an agency armed with ER equipment to record the depositon, then go back to the agency and been asked to transcribe it? Also, the reporter is paid/reduced to a transcriptionist and the agency markets this as a way to keep reporter costs down to attorneys. I actually know of an agency doing this and feel it is inexcusable!
I also heard that NCRA actually had ER equipment at a seminar. I thought they were supposed to be on the side of the reporter?!
I applaud the states that have seen the error of their ways and brought back the reporters. In places where there is a shortage, maybe if it were well advertised there might be some reporters who would consider moving to take the job.
justmythought | 4:42 p.m. July 5, 2009
I am someone that transcribes those digital recordings. All I have to say is we
have a live person sitting with the recording making sure it is working properly
and I will guarantee you half the time you're not getting the correct
transcript. Digital recordings are unreliable. A court reporter is trained to
speak up and understand how important the record is. A court monitor on the
other hand just doesn't seem to understand how important it is. And Utah
thinks it's going to work with no one monitoring the system? Good luck to
you!!!
ksport | 8:02 a.m. July 6, 2009
A friend of mine transcribes for the courts. In every transcript there are
'inaudible' parts.The sad part is once Utah realizes they really do
need the reporters, the reporters will have moved and gotten jobs other places
in the country where they are appreciated. I've transcribed administrative
hearings before and they are a pain. I wouldn't want to transcribe one,
personally. They couldn't pay me enough.
Connecticut | 8:54 a.m. July 6, 2009
I am also a person who transcribes the digital and taped recordings, and I DO
SPEAK UP and interrupte when I can't hear or make out what is being
recorded. There are many very conscientious monitors doing an excellent job on
what they have to work with. I think that unmaned equipment is just
inexcusable. No one seems to care about the sanctity of the record any more.
Response for Hardmanb | 11:05 a.m. July 6, 2009
Dear Sir or Madam:
How sad that you are so judgmental in your characterization of court reporters and the amount of money they make. You know very well how lawyers take a bashing all the time, and now you are doing the same to others who have supported the bar for years. Perhaps you came across some less-than-professional reporters relative to their quality of work. However, it's not appropriate to bash professionals because you're angry at how much they are paid for their services. If you think court reporters make so much money, you had and currently have the same opportunity as them to go to school and become a court reporter. As a matter of fact, I know several attorneys who did just that. This seems to be a heated matter amongst the court reporters and the typists and transcriptionists. If we can keep the personal bashing out of it, I think it will be much more fruitful of a discussion. Everyone has their own opinions. I do as well. And we are all affected on this subject by our personal experiences. Let's all be respectful of each other and our opinions.
How sad that you are so judgmental in your characterization of court reporters and the amount of money they make. You know very well how lawyers take a bashing all the time, and now you are doing the same to others who have supported the bar for years. Perhaps you came across some less-than-professional reporters relative to their quality of work. However, it's not appropriate to bash professionals because you're angry at how much they are paid for their services. If you think court reporters make so much money, you had and currently have the same opportunity as them to go to school and become a court reporter. As a matter of fact, I know several attorneys who did just that. This seems to be a heated matter amongst the court reporters and the typists and transcriptionists. If we can keep the personal bashing out of it, I think it will be much more fruitful of a discussion. Everyone has their own opinions. I do as well. And we are all affected on this subject by our personal experiences. Let's all be respectful of each other and our opinions.
Court Reporter | 7:19 p.m. July 6, 2009
If we are going to talk about rackets, let's talk rackets. Why do states
employ reporters in the first place for civil cases? The taxpayers are footing
the bill for private parties to sue each other why again? Is it so that
lawyers, who make $400 to $500 an hour, do not have to pay for these fees out of
their own pockets and gladly slip those costs to the taxpayers. In many other
states where the attorneys do not have such a monopoly on the state
legislatures, these private parties are required to fund their own litigation
costs.
And this "new" digital system is really just going back to the stone ages, the way the court reporting business was conducted 20 years ago, but it certainly is cheaper. But again, why does the taxpayer pay for this service? And exactly who will be typing these transcripts? Probably the ones who pushed to have this digital service put in place is the most obvious place to look first.
Yes, he who lives in a glass house......
And this "new" digital system is really just going back to the stone ages, the way the court reporting business was conducted 20 years ago, but it certainly is cheaper. But again, why does the taxpayer pay for this service? And exactly who will be typing these transcripts? Probably the ones who pushed to have this digital service put in place is the most obvious place to look first.
Yes, he who lives in a glass house......
"Transcriber" [sic] | 8:00 p.m. July 6, 2009
You folks are missing the point. I mean people post the steno and ask other
people to help them GUESS. The steno is obviously not accurate if you
don't know what it says. I'd much rather have an inaudible than a
guess if it were my case, but you're missing the point: With digital,
multi-channel mic'd courtrooms, you can isolate the voices to hear them
separate from the crosstalk. (No human ear can do that.) So what's the
point of having live reporters if you aren't going to interrupt and get it
right? That's what you keep harping on to justify your existence, but VERY
few of you do it. And I've been around a long time. I've heard enough
to know what I'm talking about, not just a "few" reporters. TRey
depend on me to dig what they didn't get out of the recordings. And if you
always get it all, why do you need parentheticals for crosstalk? Why the jokes
about creative writing to fill in what you didn't get?
"Transcriber" [sic] | 8:17 p.m. July 6, 2009
And by the way, not all transcriptionists are illiterate or foreign. I have
more education than ANY reporter I've ever worked for, but I have to work
at home for health reasons. I oh so humbly apologize if I come across as
bashing, but I'M TIRED OF BEING BASHED as ignorant because I work at home.
Transforming words from sound to paper: I can do it right. I can do it
efficiently. I have enough patience to dig out every single word that was said,
and I'll do it for a very fair price. That's not $1.00 a page, no
ma'am, but a person can work for a LOT less than court reporters have
traditionally made and still make a darn good day's pay for a hard
day's work. Yeah, I'll say it. Reporters had the market cornered
with a remarkable skill (steno). They abused it, they overcharged, they lived
high on the hog, and they've gotten themselves in this corner where
they're being replaced by technology (as have many other crafts through the
ages). Blame it on others all you want, but it's happening.
Interesting | 11:21 p.m. July 6, 2009
I find it interesting that scopists are fighting over these scraps. Clearly,
only court reporters understand what is required to fulfill the needs of this
position. This is not a 40-hour-a-week job with weekends and holidays off.
This is more like 80 to 90 hours with deadline after deadline, and weekends are
only stolen moments in time that should be spent doing transcripts. When all is
said and done, the pay is little better than minimum wage per hour. The
reporters in these positions are basically working two jobs. The only reporters
who take these positions are those that love to work with judges, because it
certainly has nothing to do with the compensation, not for what you have to pay
this piper. These reporters were saints, and you're bashing them?
Certainly no way in Hades would I ever do that job, especially more so after
seeing the thanks they get for all their hard work. Let the scopists have the
scraps, and good luck with that 90 cents a page for pages that you must now
proof after typing from scratch. Or did you not know that is what they're
paying per page? LOL
RPR | 7:17 a.m. July 7, 2009
Do the math. If they're getting paid $0.90/page, they have to type it up
from scratch, then proofing and research and other interruptions (just because
you work at home and everybody else thinks you don't have a real job so
they can interrupt you at any time), you're doing good to get 60 pages in a
day under that scenario. Let's see, 60 pages x $0.90 = $54 a day for more
than eight hours of work. Then you have to take into account the tax man and
other business related costs. That's way less than minimum wage per hour.
The bean counters and the attorneys are laughing all the way to the bank, and
the scopists are chomping at the bits to get one of these "lucrative"
positions. Once it dawns on these scopists just how much they've been
duped, these transcripts will not be getting typed, and the whole system will
give "constipation" a whole new meaning. Meanwhile, the taxpayers
will be the ones footing the bill for this failed experiment. Bureacracy and
nepotism at its finest moments!!
linda | 6:41 a.m. July 8, 2009
I've been a reporter for the same firm for over 30 years. I've never
had a paid sick day, holiday, vacation, bonus, no 401-k plan, no insurance. I
have worked my butt off in an area known for its diverse population. You name
the accent, I've done it. Many personal plans, appointments, weekends lost
to a job that requires you to be available at all times. I don't have a
huge ego and don't live high on the hog. I barely get by. So tired of the
people who say you have a great job, all you do is sit there. I get 60 percent
of what I bill (that is, if the bill gets paid), and if it's a referral
from another agency, it's even less. Sometimes it's even a referral
from a referral, so I'm left with very little. Hardly worth it after all
my years of experience and hard work.
A Court Reporter | 1:30 p.m. July 13, 2009
As far as transcriber is concerned, that person is exactly the reason why I
don't use one. I've used a scopist before, who was very good, but by
the time I paid the scopist what was I left with? As far as digging out every
word from a tape, we reporters have as much patience, if not more than you
because we've had to sit for hours, first at the proceeding, then to
transcribe it ourselves, then to proof read the transcript. You can't EVEN
compare yourself to what we reporters go through. And what parenthicals are you
talking about? We only use them for going off the record, reading back, and
breaks. You have no clue what you're talking about. The creative writing
joke is just that, a joke! I would NEVER leave it up to a
scopist/trancriptionist to put in something that I never got! Get real! The
only reporters I ever knew who lived high off the hog were ones that married the
attorneys. Are you someone who tried reporting school but couldn't cut it?
A Court Reporter | 3:33 p.m. July 13, 2009
Also, the only others who lived high off the hog were the agency owners which is
why I would never, ever work for another agency again! Not with all the greed
they have had and treated us reporters like we were the ones that were supposed
to be lucky to have a job! I finally saw the light, got away from the agency
mentality and am doing well without having to kill myself like you have to for
them in order to make any money! Trying to have your own
scopist/transcriptionist while at an agency, you just couldn't make any
money for yourself after the agency took their half and then what you pay a
scopist/transcriptionist!
CRPRTR | 2:07 p.m. July 19, 2009
There was mention of not interrupting in court. I tried that at a hearing once
(I'm a freelancer most of the time) and the judge yelled at me not to
interrupt during his proceedings. I don't do court anymore because of that
type of behavior. I did not get into this profession to be yelled at by other
people. I think working all night and all day and all weekend it's not a
very glam job but I enjoy what I do and I can't imagine doing anything
else.
It is NOT the reporter making a huge sum of money it is the firm that makes that money and then pays HALF to the one doing all the work, except the scheduling and printing. Attorneys would be much better off to hire ICs who will be able to answer for themselves than to go through a firm.
And when I am at work in a deposition I interrupt and get clarification while ON SITE at the time.
It is NOT the reporter making a huge sum of money it is the firm that makes that money and then pays HALF to the one doing all the work, except the scheduling and printing. Attorneys would be much better off to hire ICs who will be able to answer for themselves than to go through a firm.
And when I am at work in a deposition I interrupt and get clarification while ON SITE at the time.
AngryReporter | 3:34 p.m. July 19, 2009
Anonymous made this comment: Nope, never went to court reporting school, but I
spent a lot of years as a paralegal finding mistakes in their transcripts and
proving to them that things I had on a little secret tape recorder (required by
my attorneys, always) were NOT as they came out in a transcript.
I think the fact that your attorney requested you to perform the illegal activity of making a secret recording of a proceeding speaks volumes to the ethics of said attorney. The fact that you would actually perform said illegal act speaks volumes to your ethics. Given your obvious lack of respect for the law, it's hard to take anything you say seriously. The law allows an errata sheet to be attached to deposition transcripts if the deponent feels an error has been made. Whether the proceedings are taken by a certified reporter or transcribed off a tape, a correction process is built into the system. I sure hope your boss gets burned one day and has to answer for his unethical behavior in front of the review board!!
I think the fact that your attorney requested you to perform the illegal activity of making a secret recording of a proceeding speaks volumes to the ethics of said attorney. The fact that you would actually perform said illegal act speaks volumes to your ethics. Given your obvious lack of respect for the law, it's hard to take anything you say seriously. The law allows an errata sheet to be attached to deposition transcripts if the deponent feels an error has been made. Whether the proceedings are taken by a certified reporter or transcribed off a tape, a correction process is built into the system. I sure hope your boss gets burned one day and has to answer for his unethical behavior in front of the review board!!
Seattleite | 9:48 p.m. July 19, 2009
Nothing will take the place of a live, intelligent person who's paying
attention to the proceedings to get the most accurate timely transcript you can
get. What we do is very difficult and requires a lot of skill, patience, and
sometimes assertiveness when what's being said isn't quite loud enough
or people are talking over each other or somebody mumbles.
Never underestimate the superiority of the human factor. Assuming, of course, that human is intelligent, which the vast majority of certified court reporters are. You have to be to do this job. Considering what you get, we're a bargain.
(If a judge ever yelled at me, I would take the time to remind him/her exactly what my job is. We all have jobs to do.)
Btw, Typing 60 pages a day every day will soon land you in the doctor's office. Typists aren't robots. LOL
Never underestimate the superiority of the human factor. Assuming, of course, that human is intelligent, which the vast majority of certified court reporters are. You have to be to do this job. Considering what you get, we're a bargain.
(If a judge ever yelled at me, I would take the time to remind him/her exactly what my job is. We all have jobs to do.)
Btw, Typing 60 pages a day every day will soon land you in the doctor's office. Typists aren't robots. LOL
What a minute...! | 9:52 p.m. July 19, 2009
"fast-fingered typists"??! Are they kidding?
Let's keep track of this, and let's see what kind of liability the State of Utah will incur the first time someone can't get a transcript or an accurate transcript and sues the state for denial of their civil rights. Some costs aren't so obvious, and being cheap sometimes costs so much more down the road.
Let's keep track of this, and let's see what kind of liability the State of Utah will incur the first time someone can't get a transcript or an accurate transcript and sues the state for denial of their civil rights. Some costs aren't so obvious, and being cheap sometimes costs so much more down the road.
Steno | 7:41 a.m. July 20, 2009
Mike in Texas, you may have helped install digital recording equipment in Akron,
Ohio, but the Common Pleas, Juvenile, and Domestic Relations all use
stenographers.
Court reporter | 1:51 p.m. July 20, 2009
Anyone who hires a court reporter should check the reporter's certfications
before hiring them. I would not hire someone unless they are certified by NCRA
as at least an RPR.
What would we do without court reporters? One thing is that the deaf and hard-of-hearing population in this country would not have captions on their televisions for live broadcasts. Can you imagine not being able to hear on 9/11? You would have no clue as to what was going on in this world. Court reporters do much more than just judicial reporting.
What would we do without court reporters? One thing is that the deaf and hard-of-hearing population in this country would not have captions on their televisions for live broadcasts. Can you imagine not being able to hear on 9/11? You would have no clue as to what was going on in this world. Court reporters do much more than just judicial reporting.
Mike in Texas | 4:22 p.m. July 20, 2009
Actually, I have helped install and manage audio court recording systems in
Massachusetts, Alaska, and the Municipal Court of Akron Ohio. At the time, those
courts either did not have or could not afford reporters. In Alaska, I was the
State Transcript Administrator, and as such well aware of the limitation of
recording devices. However, the technology just gets better and better. As with
any technology its success is dependant on proper selection and management.
Also, I have met with and spoke about this issue before the National Court Reporters Association. The Ohio courts you mention had reporters before I got there, and they were, and I bet still are, well entrenched.
However, You should know that even with electronic devices in the Akron Municipal Court, I used a reporter to produce the final transcript for review on appeal. I view audio recording devices as technically supperior to the Steno Box, but I also recognize value in the expertise and experience of a professional reporter in transcript production. In short, I think reporters should have been more willing to adopt new recording technology. There was a time when transcripts were made with a quil pen you know.
Also, I have met with and spoke about this issue before the National Court Reporters Association. The Ohio courts you mention had reporters before I got there, and they were, and I bet still are, well entrenched.
However, You should know that even with electronic devices in the Akron Municipal Court, I used a reporter to produce the final transcript for review on appeal. I view audio recording devices as technically supperior to the Steno Box, but I also recognize value in the expertise and experience of a professional reporter in transcript production. In short, I think reporters should have been more willing to adopt new recording technology. There was a time when transcripts were made with a quil pen you know.
steno | 6:54 a.m. July 21, 2009
I have no problem with a municipal court using a recording device. I have found
that there are very few proceedings that write up in a municipal court and
therefore would not be worth a stenographic reporter's time. As far as a
recording device being superior to a live stenographic reporter, I disagree. No
device is superior to a live human being.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Jodi Sudweeks types a verbatim record of a hearing under Judge Deno Himonas at the 3rd District Court on Friday.
- No. 10 Ga. Tech survives 8:10 p.m.
- No. 15 Ohio St beats No. 11 Penn St 8:09 p.m.
- South Dakota defeats SUU 8:07 p.m.
- Alabama 24, LSU 15 8:06 p.m.
- How the AP Top 25 fared 8:05 p.m.
- Navy upset Irish 8:04 p.m.
- Holiday airfares near 2008's 7:54 p.m.
- Plan to track foreigners is readied 7:54 p.m.
- Utes pound winless Lobos 7:38 p.m.
- Panel discusses sex-ed curriculum 7:23 p.m.
- Gay advocates trek to LDS office
204 - Dirk does dirty work in Dallas190
- Letters: Care not a right187
- Lobo suspended170
- Speed has never been BYU's game136
- Jazz stumble in fourth quarter106
- RSL rallies to advance102
- Prep football: San Juan vs. S. Sevier102
- Thousands protest health bill98
- Provo company innovating engines97
Why do so many people live so close to refineries in Utah and elsewhere?
NASA's Stardust probe continues to bring new knowledge about the nature...
Advertisement
Latest comments
have you been living on a desert island for the past 10 years? BYU has had...
I agree, it was a shame more fans didn't show up, but either way the next...
Reporting a family member is never easy but when you catch a family member...
I like how the first poster is a rapid byu fan lurking on his computer...
It took the Utes a long time to shake this division two team. Not a good...
When I was a student at a community college in Arizona, one of the professors...
Are gays eligible for the program?
To the MC fan who can't get over the fact that they have to play Timpview in...
As much as I would like to see Juan Diego get beat, you are not going to...
So only the opinion of The Intellectual Don Gayle is all that counts. It...
Advertisements
On the other hand, I've had numerous problems with court reporters. Lost recordings, incorrect transcripts, and waiting up to six months for typed transcripts. The costs are a ripoff for clients, attorneys and taxpayers. $3.50 a page is a joke. That's just a typing charge. For a ten-minute take-down the minimum fee is for a half a day...$250-$350, not what is quoted in the article, then they charge each attorney for transcripts. The ripoff is that you legally lose any right to appeal anything unless there is an "official transcript". I've had clients required to pay over $2,000 for a two-day trial, that usually turn out to be useless. Anything that reduces these costs is well worth trying, to bust this costly "inside monopoly" for legal access of citizens.