Creating a Degree-Granting Institution in New York

Over two years ago I had written New York State to learn about how to legally establish a degree-granting college in New York. At that time there was not a process to do so in New York State. Now an application process has opened up and the application may be found here.

Succinctly, we will benefit from New York Stenographers being aware that they can apply to create degree-granting institutions. While I am a staunch supporter of all forms of stenographic learning, I made my way through a brick and mortar, degree-granting college, and received my Associate’s Degree in Occupational Studies, Court Reporting.

We will benefit from entrepreneurs getting together and reinventing how we teach this thing. We will benefit from schools offering financial aid to students that need it. Though this information is only a small piece of a complicated puzzle of how to open a successful school, I do hope it reaches people who have interest in perhaps designing programs of their own and building a better environment for students. At the very least, we’ll have more colleges reaching out to high school students and informing them this is a career option.

For-profit colleges are a tough market, often dependent on the employees they hire to remain in compliance with federal aid requirements and subject to scrutiny from the public. Perhaps now that New York State has opened up this application process we can see more dedicated professionals work on this issue and secure funding for schools that make programs as great as Plaza or New York School of Court Reporting. Perhaps institutions that are currently operating will take steps to grant degrees if they do not already.

For better or worse, in my experience, parents and students consider degree-granting institutions more legitimate and are more likely to put time and money into career-building if an institution or school provides a degree. Though New York currently has no educational or professional bar to becoming a stenographer, there is definitely a social stigma attached to having no degree that we cannot ignore if we hope to attract more students to this wonderful profession.

The Power of No

Happy New Year! Just wanted to start off with a fun anecdote on rates. I have written about the importance of negotiation and sharing information before. Recently a friend of mine hit kind of a jackpot and was asked to take on a job with something like 25 attorneys. We’ve all been there. Anyway, he or she was asked to abide by a sliding scale, also known as accepting a lower rate for every copy over the Nth copy. Well my friend did some math and basically said, oh wow, if I do my rates and this job is 100 pages, I make like 2,000 more dollars on this job. Friend refused the sliding scale, and was offered the job in spite of that.

By accepting the sliding scale model, the reporter would’ve made 2,000 dollars less. There’s some merit to the sliding scale model in that it can encourage attorneys that would not have ordered to order, but I think we as reporters should be very clear with ourselves about how it impacts us. First, less money. Okay. But second: Are you guaranteed that that sliding scale is being applied to the job you’re taking? This should be a primary goal for us. If you want us to take a sliding scale, we want to see some proof this is what’s being offered to the clients. We want some assurance that the agency isn’t making tons of money by charging full price on copies and then binding us to a sliding scale. The power of no can be the difference between getting your full rate and being bound to a sliding scale. And remember, the slide is downward!

While we’re on the topic of the power of no, let’s touch up on contracting again. Contracting is the idea that these big box entities make big sweeping contracts with insurers to only use specific agencies for specific insurance work. Very much litigation is funded by insurance money. People who’re against this are basically against it for two reasons: One, if you hand a big box a lot of market share, they can dictate rates easier because they have so much work. Two, it binds people who are not a party to the contract to the contract. Basically defendants protected by their insurer are forced to use the court reporting company at their deposition. This can be an issue because defendants whose insurance do not ultimately cover the full cost of litigation may end up paying the cost of reporting services they didn’t agree to. And here’s a great point: If the big box people can’t fill those jobs, it might force them to raise rates or end any exclusive deal they have with the insurer. That said, it is imperative that stenographer agencies compete for these contracts. More competition in the market means more money off to individual reporters. Think about it. No more concentration of market share equals agencies competing to attract and keep the talent. The power of no can reset the whole damn industry to a place where reporters are winning.

If you’re a freelancer, you’re going to bump into the sliding scale model eventually, or asked to do contract work for a low rate, and you’re going to have to decide what to do. Do yourself a favor, and remember the power of no.

Stenographers, US Legal Is Not Your Friend

As some quick background, I received an anonymous email that basically said “US Legal is shifting to ECR and having stenos train them, your mileage may vary but your days are numbered.” Hit up two of my favorite friends and mentors about it. One said, “they sent it to you because you blog everything, don’t give them any air time.” The other said, “look into it, verify whether or not it’s true, and there’s not much you can do about it.”

So anyway, I took the second option, and I surveyed some people using Google/Facebook, and like me, people had heard this before. A dear friend sent me a mailer that was received from US Legal CA. They want people to transcribe from home. Then I went looking on the careers page of the website and found their New York listing for Electronic Court Reporter. Probably because we are 1099s, there’s not the slightest mention of stenographic reporter.

But this inspires some critical thought. Why would a company push so hard for transcribers and electronic recorders? My opinion? They believe that the alternative methods are where the almighty dollar is. But they rely on us not speaking about it. They rely on us not sharing this message. They rely on us continuing to work with them using our infrastructure and experience that stenography has built over the last six decades. So I have an honest message to any stenographic reporter: Leave them in the dust. Don’t take the jobs, take the clients. It’s one thing if you want to work with us and pay us well. It’s another thing entirely to position yourself to do away with us. These aren’t your clients, they are our customer base, and we’re taking it back.

Consider too that these companies have shown the willingness and desire to not play by the rules. In a recent decision, Holly Moose v US Legal, US Legal argued that it should not be bound by state rules because it is in the business of connecting customers with independent contractors. The court said that this logic was unpersuasive at best.

Our ability to stay vibrant and the viability of this field rely on being visible and profitable. Nobody is going to educate stenographers if we’re making transcriber money. If a company offered you double your money this year but no more jobs after that ever from anyone, would you take it? That’s what we’re looking at on a grand scale the more we put our heads in the sand. Companies exist out of convenience to their investors. Reduce that margin, watch them pull out, and let the work flow naturally where it needs to: Stenographic court reporters.

The Positive Reporting Challenge

Have you been on the stenography or court reporting subreddits? You may be surprised to see that those communities are not heavily populated by stenographers, but awash with electronic recording heralds.

It’s no secret what they’re doing. They’re poaching people who have an interest in stenography or court reporting and siphoning them to recording. It’s out there in the open, it’s legal and allowed. Transcribers can be taken from a pool of people that know nothing about what we do or how much we make, and then put to work for far less than what they deserve for the job — our job.

They rely on us being complacent and putting on a vitriolic, belligerent public face. They rely on us not taking notice or doing nothing about it. They rely on us not stepping in and saying: Yeah, you can go record, but you can also do what I do, and wow, what I do has given me a lot of success. They need people to become transcribers. The companies that want transcribers are on a recruitment drive, and they go directly to the root to get recruits, us.

I say we take it back. One person described how their girlfriend just got a job recording for US Legal. You know what I did? I said wow, congratulations. But if she likes it, why doesn’t she try steno? She can get paid more for the same job! Encourage people. Empower people to step up the game and join the stenographic legion. And boy, did it enflame another user. He was all LOL tape recorders are taking your job.

And now I realize — this strikes a nerve. It absolutely breaks their game when we come in and say: Hey, this is a great career, and you make more. I mean just by politely suggesting steno, I made someone explode.

So what do I propose? I propose anyone who has five minutes this month sit down, make a Reddit account, head over there to the stenography or court reporting subreddit, and post something positive about steno, or post a resource for steno. Whether you had a great run for 30 years, or you mentored a student, or you have a wonderful resource for sten learners, or you have a great career right now, just go write about it. Let’s be honest, there are thousands of us. If just ten say something nice about steno, it drowns out the ads for ER and puts us in the best possible light.

What’s business about? Presence. Location, location, location. And right now you’ve got ER sitting right under a sign labeled court reporting. Set up shop and put it out there for the public: This field’s here to stay.

Fun History: License Plates

Have you ever seen a stenographic license plate? It’s a funny truth that while there are not so many people who can survive a stenographic education, just about anyone can read stenography if they care to, and we can even be called out on some of what we do.

In 1993 a decision was made (reaffirmed) that in California to be deemed an offensive word unsuitable for a license plate, a word need not be understood in that manner by every addressee. This happened when Anita Kahn appealed the decision by the DMV to revoke her stenographic license plate which had the phrase “if you can” on it. For our non-court reporting audience, this can also be translated as the F word. The court determined that some 50,000 to 60,000 people in the state could understand it, that there was therefore a large enough audience to find the word offensive, and that DMV could revoke the plates.

It’s not too often I get to write about fun or interesting things, so it’s my pleasure to get to write about Kahn v Department of Motor Vehicles (1993) (No. B064070. Second Dist., Div. One. May 3, 1993). Originally brought to my attention via a Facebook post. Indeed, it’s a good reminder that wherever we are and whatever we do, there’ll always be someone to rat us out. Kidding!

Law For Stenographers (NY)

We’re going to take a quick walk through all the law stenographers in NY might want to know. It’s not required that you know these things, but some of it may be relevant to you at some point and worth discussion. As a quick note, a lot of law regarding NYS cases can be found in the CPLR (Civil Procedure Law and Rules).

CPLR 2309, Oaths and Affirmations: This section dictates who can give oaths. It basically says anyone who can give an acknowledgment under the real property law.

CPLR 3113(a) and 3113(b) talk about before whom a deposition may be taken and describe how the officer administering the oath is supposed to act. It also goes at length to describe that the deposition is to continue without interruption and that objections are to be noted by the officer that swore in the witness or a person under their direction.

Real Property Law 301: This lists people that can take acknowledgments, and surprise, notaries can.

Brief warning: The answers you get from authority bodies can occasionally be wrong. This is not necessarily the fault of the authority body in this case. I was asking a question about the CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter License) which is handled by a different part of the Department of State, as best I can tell, than the Notary License. This created the confusion in my warning example! If you’re going to ask an authority body a question, make sure you’re asking the right question to the right body.

Remote Swearing of Witnesses: Despite my warning above, this is an example of questions to an authority done right. Long story short, Notary Law says we cannot swear witnesses remotely, CPLR 3113(d) says we can. Well, I got an email from the Department of State, which as far as I know is the authority body for our Notary License, and they say we can remotely swear witnesses if it’s done properly under CPLR 3113(d).

Penal Law 210.30: A person is not allowed to say haha you got the oath wrong so I don’t have to tell the truth. Irregularities are no defense to perjury.

New York Wiretapping: It is a one-party consent state so audio is generally allowed. That said, if you leave the room while the audio is on then you’re not really a party and it could theoretically cause you problems. For recording in judicial proceedings see court rules 131 below.

Errors of transcriber waived: CPLR 3116(e) basically says errors are waived unless a motion is made in a reasonable amount of time. This is for all reporters and companies who have ever faced the lawyer who has a deposition and a year later complains about some deficiency or error with the transcript. Errors waived! If you’re ever sued for error or omission, this should be a serious line of defense.

CPLR 3116 generally: The CPLR 3116(b) provides that we’ve got to file the transcript and seal it and do all this BS. The bottom line is that in our usual stips in NY we waive this filing by the officer. Make life easy, make sure you have language waiving the filing of the transcript in your stips page if you use one.

CPLR 3115(b) and CPLR 3115(d) errors in oath/affirmation and disqualification: If you make an error in your oath or affirmation, it doesn’t make the whole thing null and void. An objection has to be made pretty much at the depo according to CPLR 3115(b). And a motion or objection has to be made in a reasonable amount of time from the point where, with due diligence, they would’ve learned you should be disqualified from giving an oath. Note that this doesn’t necessarily give you a free pass to shirk your responsibilities. In 1910, Bookman v City of New York 200 N.Y. 53 (N.Y. 1910) the court talked a bit about how it was important to give the oath in a lawful manner.

No speaking objections: The Uniform Rules Part 221 were revised some time ago to make depositions much more seamless. Basically they don’t get to have speaking objections except for when objections which would be waived if not interposed. It doesn’t matter much for you, except your usual stips page probably has something about it.

Redaction of Confidential Personal Information: Often in NY, freelancers feel obligated or become worried about redacting Confidential Personal Information. While it is true that we are often asked to and lawyers often stipulate that certain things should be redacted or truncated, it is not your direct legal responsibility. It is the responsibility of the filer of the document. If that fails, the court itself may redact information sua sponte.

You must be paid: General Business Law 399-cc basically says when an attorney of record orders a stenographic record be made, they have to pay for it. So this is for all my contemporaries who have been threatened with nonpayment over the years. They must pay you.

Civil Rights Law 52 – Witnesses being made to testify by subpoena may have a right not to have their testimony taped or broadcasted.

Part 108 Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge: This talks about rates and payment for official court reporters in NYS. Admittedly, not important for freelancers, but good food for thought with regard to discussions of pay and what people are paid for similar work.

Antitrust Law: A very brief summary of this is that in the United States competitors cannot collude to set prices. Price fixing among competitors upwards or downwards is illegal and considered anticompetitive. What this means is we cannot come together and say the rate should be 4.00 a page or don’t work for XYZ Agency unless they pay 5.00 a page because we as freelancers are considered competitors and that could be considered an agreement to set rates. This is also why our trade associations steer clear of rates discussions because the entire organization can be sunk by an antitrust suit.

No depositions on Sunday: The Notary Law packet, which is a bunch of laws thrown into a packet, quietly mentions towards the back that depositions may not be taken on Sunday. When I asked the Department of State they basically explained that Section 5 of the judiciary law says a court shall not conduct business on Sunday. In 1964 the Attorney General of New York released Opinion 103, which interpreted this to mean depositions couldn’t be held on Sunday. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find a good website link, as the opinions indexed only seem to go back to 1995. I originally became interested in this topic because the New York Notary Law packet mentioned no depositions on Sunday but offered no other guidance.

Court Rules Part 131 generally prohibit audio-visual recording of judicial proceedings. Also see Part 29.

Sexual Harassment law. Everyone should know some of the basics I covered in my article on this, but more particularly, in 2018 the legislature amended the law. Freelancers are now supposed to be legally protected against sexual harassment.

Criminal Procedure Law Article 190 deals with grand jury proceedings and mandates that a certified stenographer is authorized to be present for grand jury proceedings. 190.25 deals with grand jury secrecy. Penal Law 215.70 makes unlawful disclosure an E felony. Penal Law 110 describes that an attempt to commit an E felony constitutes an A misdemeanor. See my article on recording of New York grand jury proceedings.

This amendment to Judiciary Law 390: The court had the power to make arrangements for deaf and hard of hearing jurors, lawyers, and litigants in New York but no mandate by law to do so. This mandated the court to use CART reporters or other means to assist people who need it. This passed and is law.

This proposed amendment to Judiciary Law 290: This amendment would have ensured the use of court reporters in New York City courts and is very important to us as a whole. It’s my belief that we should make this a legislative priority for reporters in New York, but as of writing has not passed, and to my knowledge, has not been put up for vote again. Notably it passed the NYS Senate but not the NYS Assembly.

Proposed amendment to Workers Comp Law 122: The workers comp board in NY unfortunately moved to tape recording and it was a serious blow to us in NYS. Tried to stop it by legislatively directing them to use stenographic court reporters. This was yes’d by the NYS Senate, yes’d by the NYS assembly, and vetoed by Governor Cuomo. If ever there’s a time to pass this again, I say we take it.

Proposed amendment to the CPL to make Senior Court Reporters peace officers. Honestly, politics aside, raising us to peace officer status would give us a good deal of power and responsibility.

The civil service law on eligible lists. Often people ask why eligible lists only last four years. This is why.

Please note that there is quite a lot of law I did not bother to mention here, mostly dealing with court stenographers, and that they must furnish the transcript to parties upon payment (Judiciary Law 300). There are also appellate rules (CPLR 5525) that talk about our transcripts. Unremarkable, but Judiciary Law 330 talks about how typists authorized by the district attorney may prepare our transcripts, which is likely from a time when we didn’t have computer-assisted transcription. There’s also an oddly specific law dictating what stenographers in the eighth judicial district must do, Judiciary Law 309. As far as I know and understand, these judiciary laws only apply to people employed by the courts. If you want more stenographer law, try using keywords in this law crawler program. Including all of it here would not really serve a purpose.

Know more New York law that should be here? Let me know. On that note, no federal laws have been posted but keep an eye out in the future for an FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) post.

Addendum:

Case law that supports stenographic reporters was brought to my attention. See People v Smith NY3d 2016 NY Slip Op 4973. Defendant complained of inadequate transcripts and court recordings, but appeal was sent back down due to failure to file an affidavit of errors.

A reader asked about TVB transcription rules. As of yet, the only thing I’m aware of here that might potentially relate to stenographers is 15 CRR-NY 155.3 (c).

Unsworn depositions, particularly on the federal side, can open up reporters to liability. See Dineen Squillante’s post on this. Looking forward to its publication in Vermont!

The Limitations of Institution

If only a reader could experience that same sour feeling I have having to write this. Recently, I spotted a non-steno recording job on one of the court reporting groups. We have a deep disdain for that stuff because digital recording is making its way into pretty much any market it can and our strongest potential defenders, the big box agencies, can be pretty much fine with whatever happens because they can switch direction or become a recording firm. They’re only going to spend money on reporting for as long as they’re making money on reporting. We, as individuals, couldn’t make so easy a switch. The jobs would, in all likelihood, pay a lot less and force a lot of us out. We don’t have anybody fighting for us. We don’t have, individually, a great deal of money. And, for some reason, we refuse to support state and national organizations that could, given a better budget and a more robust membership, fight for us. So before I jump into the limitations of institution, let me just say, join one today! There’s a heck of a lot of power in a collective, and it is one avenue we must not ignore in bringing more people into the field.

But now it’s time to talk about the restrictions imposed on institutions. They can’t discuss prices for fear of being branded as price fixers and slapped with antitrust litigation. They can’t, on a whim, make posts or statements. Everything is controlled by a board, or bylaw, or some legal standard. In the end, this is good, because it ensures that members that join a reporting association can pretty much join and be comfortable that the board is going to do the right thing, or everyone will be able to see detrimental changes to the organization from a mile away and be allowed to yell, “stop! Stop!” In the end, this is also bad, because it makes some tactics or solutions unimaginable or unimaginably slow for an institution.

That’s where we, mostly free people, can come into play. I’ve been quite troubled in recent times. We have a great presence of reporters on Facebook. There are innumerable groups meant to support reporters and we’re doing fine there. But the internet is large, and we are losing ground in a lot of places. On Reddit and Quora the digital reporting folks and the resurgence of stenography in India have started to block us out. YouTube’s got a lot of Indian steno too. If you’re searching court reporting, you’re getting recorders. If you’re searching stenography, you’re getting at least some Indian content.

So the other day I saw a job for exactly one position for a digital recorder on Staten, and I posted it on Facebook on my own page and in a very large NYC jobs page with over 150,000 members. But I did that with an objective. Along with this one position, I made sure the words court reporting, stenography, and machine shorthand reporter hit that page. I made sure to say if you like legal proceedings, come do what I do, there are jobs open for real court reporters today. I accept that I’ll be told I’m wrong. I accept that I’ll be talked about behind my back. But I brought the words machine shorthand reporter in front of a potential 150,000 jobseekers in one post. Jobseekers with friends, and family, and all sorts of people who know people. Frankly, why do you think digital reporters are sitting on our Reddit? To draw people and say come, do what we do. I say to any of you, they have these recording jobs already, and they’re going to fill them, so it’s probably time for we who are not limited by institution to fight exactly the way they fight. Be where they are. Grab the attention of people they’re marketing to. Yeah, you can do that, but you can also become a machine shorthand reporter and do better! You can do better! You can be one of us! And as for why I didn’t just mention straight court reporting? The gates of that group of 150,000 jobseekers are high. They have strict rules about what can be posted and how it can be posted. I had to fit their mold, and I used the recorders to do it.

If you want reporting to be a viable option for a child, friend, or family member, it has to stay robust and attract students. We all know how hard it is to make it through school. A small percentage of people that see court reporting will try it. A small percentage of the people that try it will like it. A small percentage of the people that like it will be good at it. And finally, a percentage of the people who are good at it will make a career of it. If we don’t get a whole heck of a lot of people to see court reporting, we’re looking at a situation where we’re replaced with recorders out of necessity.

So if you see me out there doing something you don’t like, feel free to ask, feel free to denigrate, feel free to do whatever it is you do, but remember that most of that energy can be used to come up with bigger and better ideas than I ever had. Remember that this field needs you.

Open Steno by Professional Writer Claire Williams

Though posted by me for the purposes of this site, this was written by Claire Williams, who can be found on Twitter @claireducky. Reference: Open Steno.

If you’ve ever served on a jury, been to a court hearing, or watched an episode of Law and Order, you may have noticed someone in the courtroom typing into a strange-looking machine. That person with the flying fingers is a stenographer, and their job is much more important than you might imagine. These behind-the-scenes professionals efficiently document the inner workings of our justice system, write closed captions for those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, and much more. In the past, you had to invest in specialized training and expensive equipment to become a stenographer. The volunteers at the Open Steno Project are trying to change that, however, by helping people learn stenography for free so they can use this valuable skill in their everyday lives.

To an untrained observer, shorthand writing systems might seem too complicated to be useful in the real world. However, stenography isn’t just for transcriptionists, court reporters, or the actors that play them on television. Typing on a traditional keyboard is fairly straightforward: one keystroke equals one character. Stenography works by pressing multiple keys together that represent a specific sound or syllable. Much like playing a piano, steno keys pressed together are referred to as “chords”, and these chords vastly increase potential writing speed. While an average person can type about 40 to 60 words per minute, and skilled typists average between 70 to 120 words per minute, someone trained in stenography writes well over 200 words per minute. This is even faster than most people speak. Just imagine how much your productivity would increase if you could type four or five times faster than you do now.

Stenography may appear to be a dying art in a digital age, but the skill is actually more relevant today than ever before. Speech-to-text software cannot compete with the accuracy and contextual writing of a trained stenographer. If you’ve ever tried using a dictation application on your phone or computer, you’re probably familiar with the technology’s limitations. Frequently, documents produced by speech recognition software are littered with spelling, grammar, and syntax errors—all of which make the editing process take even longer. Let’s face it: artificial intelligence systems aren’t really all that intelligent yet, and even the best-trained computer can never interpret a human voice perfectly. To do that, you need to have a human ear to listen and a human mind to translate speech with complete accuracy.

While stenography is commonly associated with legal professions like court reporters, shorthand writing actually has a broad range of applications outside of the courtroom. Along with incredible speeds, stenography provides serious advantages in ergonomics and functionality over a traditional QWERTY keyboard or the Dvorak Simplified keyboard. Instead of lettered keys, the chords on a steno machine can be customized and mapped to practically anything, including macros, phrases, symbols, or even snippets of code. This feature alone makes stenography infinitely more flexible than traditional writing methods. Additionally, fewer keystrokes mean less movement and stress on the hands and wrists, making stenography a great skill to learn for anyone who spends a lot of time typing or is concerned about repetitive motion injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome.

Writers, journalists, and administrative professionals could use stenography to increase their typing speed. Computer programmers, mathematicians, and scientists could use it to help write documentation or academic papers more efficiently. Certain nonverbal individuals could use it to communicate in real-time with others using assistive text-to-speech software. With all of these potential people who could benefit from stenography, why hasn’t it become more widespread?

Shorthand writing was first developed more than a thousand years ago. Stenography in its current form has been used for over 100 years. Despite this long history, the skill has never become mainstream—largely due to the many barriers to entry that exist. Typically, anyone who wants to learn stenography must take professional courses through a college or trade school. On top of a steep learning curve, stenography equipment is often prohibitively expensive, running anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 or more. As a result, stenography is woefully underutilized, because few can afford the investment to get started. Thankfully, stenographer Mirabai Knight and the Open Steno Project have been making strides to change that.

From 2005 to 2007, Mirabai Knight attended the New York Career Institute to become a stenographer. The proprietary tools and upfront expenses required inspired Knight to do something to make stenography accessible to anyone who wished to learn. To that end, Knight founded the Open Steno Project, a volunteer community dedicated to bringing stenography to the masses for free. Since then, the organization has helped thousands of people learn stenography and discover new ways to use it in their career and lives.

The first major breakthrough for OSP happened in 2009, when Knight funded the development of Plover, a free and open-source steno software that allows people to use their regular keyboard as a stenography machine. Since its initial launch in 2010, Plover has grown into a feature-packed program for Windows, Mac, and Linux which works with keyboards and steno machines, integrating seamlessly into the background of an operating system. Keystroke emulation allows Plover users to use stenography not just for transcription or court reporting purposes, but within any program or website they want, like Microsoft Word or Facebook.

To help new users learn how to use the program for stenography, the Open Steno Project community has created many free resources, including the Learn Plover! online textbook and a stenographer training game on Steam called Steno Arcade. Additionally, OSP members have tackled the issue of expensive stenography hardware by offering affordable beginner options, hobbyist equipment, and steno machine alternatives like key-toppers.

Thanks to the impressive efforts of Mirabai Knight and the Open Steno Project, now anybody can learn stenography for free. Anyone considering a career in court reporting or transcription should definitely check out the resources available from OSP, especially before spending money on a degree or certification program. Even if you don’t plan on becoming a professional stenographer, the immense benefits of learning this skill make the Open Steno Project a wonderful resource for anyone who wants to improve their life and productivity with stenography.

Stips or Stipulations

It was asked online recently, and I am paraphrasing, “In New York, why does every agency seem to have a different stips page? We should all be the same.”

I had a wordy response. I was very thorough, but I hope that any reader seeking this information will take it at face value. I don’t think I’m smarter than anyone, but I do think I am correct.

“As far as I know there is no stipulation mandated to be put in the transcript by law under the CPLR. If you read the stips, many versions of the stips, all they actually say is that the parties agree to follow certain provisions of the CPLR, which the parties are generally required to do anyway.

For your own peace of mind you may want your stips to read that parties waive filing of the transcript pursuant to CPLR 3116(b), or if a remote deposition where you are swearing the witness by video or phone that they stipulate to such remote swearing pursuant to CPLR 3113(d), but generally you are just going to get this game of every company telling you what stips they want and everybody doing their own crap because the CPLR doesn’t direct us what stipulations should be in there.

Stips pages are customary in New York, but as best I can tell, not required by law, and before I ended my freelance career, I was more or less omitting them from transcripts.

It was, my understanding, customary for lawyers to limit speaking objections except as to form. In maybe 2006 or thereafter, these rules were codified in the uniform rules for NY trial courts 221, uniform rules for conduct at depositions, and CPLR 3115. So while the attorneys may be agreeing to usual stips, it basically doesn’t matter anymore, because if it’s a NYS action, they have to follow the CPLR anyway.

So don’t let this world of everyone telling you they are right bother you… because they are all kind of right or wrong depending on how you look at it.

Hopefully this has assisted you in knowing why we are not all the same. And hopefully it’ll make you more confident to do whatever you end up doing. And hopefully if you learn I am wrong you will come back and let me know, hey, you’re wrong, the law actually says this. But I have spent a good chunk of time reading different sections of the law for this issue and would be very surprised to learn I am wrong.

(Edit. Similarly, on the Federal side, I don’t think there needs to be a stip page, but there are some interesting things about deposition proceedings in the FRCP. For example, I believe the reporter is technically supposed to say the caption information aloud, something like that. I will find it. FRCP 30(b)5.”

Remote Swearing of Witnesses (NY)

March 9, 2020.

I wrote the original article about three years ago. In its current state it is confusing and hard to follow. I have rewritten the article. Below is the new article followed by a link to the old one. The old article is preserved for the sake of completeness only. Note that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, merely a discussion of law.

NEW ARTICLE:

The New York State Department of State oversees the Division of Licensing, which licenses and oversees our notary public licenses, which allows us to swear witnesses. The DOS also publishes a notary law packet which is an amalgam and presentation of the various bodies of law that govern notaries public in New York State. In the 2017 and 2019 versions, the packet cites the 1915 case Matter of Napolis, which states in pertinent part that oaths may not be given over the phone. About 90 years later, New York’s CPLR was amended with CPLR 3113(d), which states in pertinent part that “unless otherwise stipulated to by the parties, the officer administering the oath shall be physically present at the place of the deposition…” As far as I can tell as a layperson, this makes it effectively legal for parties to stipulate that the officer administering the oath does not have to be physically present. In a 2017 correspondence with the DOS, I brought up this issue, and the DOS stated, in pertinent part, “with respect to civil depositions, a notary may under the specific provisions of Article 31 of the CPLR and in compliance
therewith, swear in a remote witnesses…” [sic]. In a June 2019 correspondence with the DOS, I asked them to amend the notary law packet to include CPLR 3113(d). They stated they would take my comment under consideration.

Some seasoned reporters are uncomfortable with the remote swearing of witnesses with the law and DOS materials as they are, and they ask the attorneys to deem that the witness be sworn instead of swearing them in. As a reporter and citizen, it’s my opinion that if you are going to ask them to deem the witness sworn, you should change the verbiage in your swear-in paragraph or cert to reflect that. If you have them stipulate to the remote swearing under CPLR 3113(d), you should ensure they state that on the record or that it is in your stipulation page. Note that all of this only governs depositions taken under the CPLR. In federal cases, Rule 30(b)(5) and rules like it may hold authority. Like its CPLR counterpart, FRCP Rule 30(b)(5) has language “unless the parties stipulate otherwise…” That said, I have never specifically asked the DOS about remote swearing under the FRCP.

I have done this research so that if one of us is ever in trouble, we have a fighting chance. There are a lot of newbies out there who do not know there’s supposed to be a stipulation, and if we can help just one not get into trouble, that’s important to me.

Addendum:

In 2020, Executive Order 202.7 was issued. You can read about it here.

In 2020, Dineen Squillante cowrote an article about the importance of oaths. The article, in part, revealed that there could be liability if a judge rules that a deposition is or was an unsworn deposition. Read it on the Vermont Bar’s Summer 2020 issue, page 32.

ORIGINAL (OLD) ARTICLE LINK.