Some time ago I came up with a pretty good formula for figuring out a court reporter’s hourly rate. It excludes appearance fees, but depending on the job, appearance fees can be pretty damn minimal and simply by adding a small amount to the hourly rate, you’d be adjusting for the lost appearance income.
Page rate * pages per hour = hourly rate.
Hourly rate * 0.33 = writing time rate
Hourly rate * 0.67 = transcription rate
Perhaps divide your appearance fee by 4 and add it to the hourly. This is a little more fair than the 4-hour blocks many in the industry use today.
From my experience, believe it or not, you can get a New York City deposition reporter for somewhere around $4.00 a page. And a court reporter gets somewhere between 40 and 60 pages per hour.
That gives us a range for a non-realtime reporter of $160 to $240 an hour. Seems high, but for every hour on the machine it can take up to 2 hours of transcription, and court reporters that can do it much faster are either cutting corners, really experienced, or really, really good.
According to my sources, digital court reporters make around $30. Just so everyone knows, a fraud nonprofit called the Speech-to-Text Institute was used by the larger corporations of the court reporting field to systematically soak the market in misinformation, confusing jobseekers and consumers. The aim was to expand digital court reporting, increase the supply of “court reporters” to create a market glut, and make corporations like Veritext look good on paper so they could be sold to the next sucker.
30/240 = 12.5%
And let me be clear, $4.00 per page is not exactly a rich life in court reporting NYC. There are many that make more than that, which means digital is an even smaller percentage.
Did your deposition discovery costs decrease 90%?
My sources say lawyer bills are higher than ever.
The secret is that charges that court reporters don’t share in are added to the bill while page rates are kept artificially low to keep you thinking you’re getting a great deal.
Do what you will with that information. Might I humbly suggest that if they’re going to use a digital court reporter, you demand that the bill be something like 20% of what it usually is.
Or let them milk you, and by extension, your clients. That’s cool too.
Just let it happen. Trust me.
With stenographer jobs being systematically eliminated via fraud and deceit rather than by actual technological advancement, there’s really no reason for us not to expose what the companies are doing. After all, if they’re successful enough in reducing stenographic court reporter numbers, courts won’t be able to fill spots, and my job will likely be eliminated someday too, and with the disabilities I live with, I’m unsure about being able to do better than what I’ve got. Call me biased, sure. But your whole system of law is based off of two biased sides presenting their evidence, so if bias is a reason to disregard truth, you can just throw out the whole justice system today if you want to paint biased people as untrustworthy.
Just writing that for a fan of mine.
Side note, corporations that make millions of dollars let a respected 14-year member of our field publish openly about their fraud for almost 3 years now. They’re banking on you doing nothing. I suppose I am too.
It occurs to me it might be best to come out and say that in terms of rates lawyers have a financial interest in prolonging this digital v steno thing. More suppliers in the market, more competition. This is juxtaposed against what the corporate schemers want, continued corporate consolidation of the field under people that can jack up prices a la tacit parallelism.
Lots of pressure for you to switch to digital. Now you know why. Do with it what you will.
As the corporate consolidation of America continues, I received correspondence from a valued reader and donor I’d like to share.
“Hi Chris!
I’m not sure that we have spoken before directly, but I am a monthly supporter of your blog. I just read the post about the Lexitas independent contractor agreement, and it made me wonder if you’ve heard about this new practice they have in some jurisdictions of automatically recording the ENTIRETY of a Zoom meeting for depositions. Obviously, it’s kind of messed up because there are personal conversations that sometimes happen between clients, counsel, and witnesses before and after the deposition officially begins along with plenty of “off-the-record” exchanges such as social security numbers and dates of birth. I figure that’s their legal problem since they’re doing it. (In fairness, the parties do get an alert they have to click through that it is being recorded.)
But from an “independent contractor” perspective, they’ve previously required us to turn over our notes in order to be paid. Many of us simply refused, as it is OUR work product and we carry our own liability insurance policies in case of catastrophic failure.
But now they’ve taken that choice away from ALL stenographers. I’m hearing rumblings that the the plan is to have a nice and clear recording because they’re pissing off stenographers left and right, and now that they have these recordings, they can outsource them to typists and the reporter will lose all control of the final transcript and, perhaps the most annoying, the income.
Have you heard anything of this? Do we have any recourse at all short of refusing to cover their work?
This could be a problem unique to Florida since we have a lot of jobs that don’t order until weeks, months, or years later.
I don’t know if Lexitas reporters in other markets would even care since it isn’t affecting them YET, which has been my unfortunate experience when trying to rally other stenographers to demand change.
Thoughts? Advice? I’ve thought of requesting an NCRA Cope opinion on it, but I am not exactly succinct and unbiased in my presentation.
Appreciate all that you do!”
And, for the record, I responded:
“Hello. I’m not sure we’ve spoken directly either but I deeply appreciate your donations. It is people like you that will put Stenonymous on the map.
I have heard of similar stuff occurring. it’s pretty certain the big boxes are outsourcing. I’ve seen advertisements myself. Though I haven’t been told about any specific agreement. They’re also using influencer culture to fill seats.
I do not know of an easy solution here. The recourse would be social, legal, or political in my view. Socially, we can withhold work as you said. But it’s my view that we can also create a media firestorm that highlights the degradation of quality and the overcharging of consumers, alongside the lawbreaking I write about. This has been the point of most of my work and a part of my publishing strategy. Most of the field plays this more proper, professional role while I attempt to reach wider audiences through this “writing shock jock” routine. I am hopeful that the end result is that the companies start second guessing their choices, because I am almost certain their choices are costing them more than they’re letting on.
Legally, if we could find a statute that they’re violating, someone might have a cause of action against them, and they can sue. Kind of like the Holly Moose case, except this time, hopefully whoever it is would win a la StoryCloud. In my case, I’ve been putting my feelers out for potential claimants on the lawbreaking I found, but I haven’t found anyone willing to take this on.
Politically we can campaign for laws, but big money people who can hire lobbyists usually win that game.
In the end, whatever solution we have is likely going to require a lot of people coming together. We’re dealing with entities that make millions. And we should do this with or without our associations, because I have found that many associations are risk averse to the point of absurdity and to the point where their members’ jobs are now threatened because we spent decades failing to educate the public and explore the science behind what we do.
I have a big ask of you, and if you don’t want me to, it’s fine. But may I publish your email (redacting your personal information)? I believe that if other reporters become aware of the situation in Florida, they might coordinate with someone like Jackie Mentecky to push back.
There may not be easy answers. But I’m willing to work hard to find new ones.”
I had the opportunity to sit down with the transcript and audio of a small claims case and claimant Wayne G. Wilson. Throughout my time with Mr. Wilson, reviewing the audio, there were several areas where he felt colloquy and testimony was missing from the transcript. Using my general court reporting experience, I listened to the audio, and did not hear any cutaways that suggested tampering, but I am not a forensic audio expert, so take that for what it is. There were a number of off-the-record discussions, so it is possible that a situation arose that was believed to be on the record when it was actually off.
It’s a long small claims trial, 66 pages, so I think the best way to do this is to provide a brief summary, provide extra insight received from Mr. Wilson, reveal video from after the trial, present major errors, present minor errors, and then allow people to download the transcript. Before I begin, I’ll say that this is among the best digital transcripts I’ve seen (eScribers), and it points to the fact that digital can produce acceptable or close-to-acceptable transcripts. We have to grapple with the fact that stenographers make mistakes too, so I’ll try to be as fair as possible, and we’ll get through it. My first notable comment is that the $3.65 per page was charged for a 14-day turnaround according to a bill received by Stenonymous. It is notable that $3.65 is the expedited rate for New York transcripts according to Part 108.2 (b)(2)(ii). That section provides for 5 business days turnaround time. As far as I know from reading about small claims from various sources, and from my own small claims case years ago, the proceedings are recorded without an audio monitor (AAERT standard is to have a monitor) and outside vendors transcribe the matter. Succinctly, right from the start, it appears that litigants could be paying nearly 22% more for what would’ve been a stenographer’s “regular” delivery. But while the bill states 14 days, Wilson states the transcript took months to be prepared, lending credibility to reports that transcription can take much longer than stenographic court reporting.
The case is fairly simple. Mr. Wilson alleges that he brought his car to a body shop or auto business, captioned as Mike’s Roadway Collision Experts, Inc., apparently A/K/A Roadway Towing and Auto Repair. The trial took place on September 23, 2022. He wanted the car painted and serviced. According to the testimony, a verbal estimate of $1,500 or $1,800 was provided and a $500 deposit was paid. From the transcript of the proceedings, the deposit was paid on June 2, 2021, and an agreement was made that the car would be done in two weeks. Events unfolded and the shop allegedly needed more time. Wilson claims that in July he walked into the facility and saw journeymen working on the car, but rubber seals were ripped off or damaged and the interior was ripped “with reckless abandon.” Wilson further explains that he had another car in Nebraska and that he would part it and fix up the car at Roadway Towing. Ultimately, defendant representative Michael Morales states in the transcript that the initial price was $2,500, that extra repairs brought the price up to $4,500, and that the price was subsequently dropped to $3,500 or $3,000. A lien was put on the car and the dispute is ongoing. Wilson has stated he does not know how a lien was put on the car because he was never served.
Wilson has several complaints about missing information in the transcript. He remembers a discussion where the defendant representative, Michael Morales, said he didn’t know anything about the carpet, and remembers an exchange where the judge questioned further about this event, allegedly stating “you said you didn’t know… [about the carpet].” This appears nowhere in the transcript or audio that I reviewed and leads Wilson to believe that there is missing information thanks to the digitally recorded proceeding.
There were some comments on the record about the car being a rust bucket. Claimant says the car wasn’t rusted. Claimant says there was confusion at the proceeding where the car in Nebraska was mistaken for the car in New York, and that it was the car in Nebraska with some rust under the fenders, which were taken off. This goes to show that even where a transcript is decent, there can be unclear points of testimony or colloquy that make litigants question the process. Hopefully it encourages us all to do our best to ensure accurate records and increase litigant confidence.
Wayne Wilson points to page 31 in the transcript as evidence that defendant is being untruthful, stating “there was no insurance. Couldn’t put insurance because I had no license or registration. There was no accident and no reason for insurance to be taken out on the car.”
In videos obtained by Stenonymous, Mr. Wilson and an unidentified cameraman apparently confront Mr. Morales, with Mr. Wilson stating “you said the car is $1800, and I just want my car, to pay whatever I need to pay to get my possessions, bro.” Mr. Morales appears to be calling the police while being filmed, and can be heard stating “…he disturbs my shop every time he comes here. I cannot trust him, I don’t know if he has any weapons…” Mr. Morales makes it clear during the video that the matter is pending in court. Later in the video, Morales states during the event “everything was done on the car…” “…and you don’t want to pay! Now you lost the car.” He continues “you’re not getting the car until you pay me all my fees.” Wilson retorts “what’s the money?” Morales comes back “I’m not discussing anything with you.” When the unidentified cameraman says “so you stole the car,” Morales replies “yes, I stole it. That’s what you say.” Eventually the altercation devolves into Wilson yelling “how much money do you want to claim now?” Both men accuse the other of being a “liar” and “clown.” At the end of the videos, Mr. Morales is seen taking out several pictures, stating “film that, this is the car.” An abrupt end followed.
Wilson says he’s been “baited” by Morales in the past. Asked for comments by mail, Michael Morales did not respond as of publishing.
Regardless of the merits of the dispute, at the end of the small claims case the judge noted that the case was dismissed without prejudice pending action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Major Errors: 1. Page 33, Line 19, “your” should be “the.” I count this as major to the extent it could be used for impeachment in a future proceeding where the insurance issue becomes relevant. If not, minor error. 2. Page 41, Line 6, “have” should be “had.” To the extent a reader might be confused between the past and present state of the car, this can be nothing or it can be an issue. 3. Page 41, Line 7, there’s an unidentified speaker. This isn’t the transcriber’s fault, but it shows the problem with recordings. There will naturally be responses and designations that are best recorded in person, right there on the spot. 4. Page 48, Line 14, Mr. Wilson is designated but Mr. Morales was speaking. Stenographers can make this error too, but I do consider it to be major in that it can confuse a reader. 5. Page 49, Line 1, Mr. Wilson is designated but Mr. Morales was speaking. 6. Page 55, Line 9 and Line 10, “And then, *if* he — he shipped the car from Ohio. He wants me to pay for that? When I had — that was way before I even — ” Missing the “if” and the question mark does seem to change context here in a way that could matter in the future.
Minor Errors: 1. Page 3, Line 10, the word “right” is missing from “raise your right hands.” 2. Page 6, Line 2, an inaudible where no crucial information appears to be lost. 3. Page 9, Line 2, ’89 Volkswagen Cabriolet is missing its apostrophe. 4. Page 12, Line 20, the judge’s comments are omitted without an “off the record” and there is an inaudible. 5. Page 14, Line 14, an inaudible. 6. Page 15, Line 25, a period is missing between “of” and “minus.” 7. Page 16, Line 24, the word “every” should be “ever.” 8. Page 19, Line 13, the word “my” is omitted before “windshield.” 9. Page 19, Line 15, possible “style difference” rather than error. Quotes can go on what was said, but this is debated in our field. 10. Page 19, Line 16, a question mark is missing after “windshield.” 11. Page 20, Line 24, Morales appears to say “no, no” rather than “no.” 12. Page 21, Line 8. There is a small pause where Wilson believes there may be something missing. I did not hear a significant change in the background noise to indicate a skip. 13. Page 22, Line 19, “brought” should be “bought.” Wilson feels this changes the context of the answer. 14. Page 25, Line 8, “are” should be “care.” 15. Page 27, Line 14, “for” should be “to.” 16. Page 32, Line 2, “would’ve” should be “would.” 17. Page 33, Line 8, I do not believe a comma should go after “and now.” 18. Page 35, Line 2, missing a question mark. 19. Page 38, Line 19, Wilson believes they discussed the exhibits and it does not appear on the record. 20. Page 39, Line 4, “message” should be “messages.” 21. Page 40, Line 17, Wilson claims the judge said “nice picture” or “she’s hot,” and it’s not reflected in the audio or transcript. He points to this as evidence that other things could be missing. 22. Page 41, Line 13, only one “in.” 23. Page 42, Line 19, “under our” should be “under article — “. 24. Page 43, Line 9, it should be “and had shipped.” 25. Page 43, Line 10, it should say “about the car.” 26. Page 45, Line 14, inaudible. It should say “tip.” 27. Page 45, Line 18, inaudible. It should say “change.” 28. Page 46, Line 3, there’s an off-the-record discussion with no indication from the judge that they’re off record, though this may just be standard small claims practice. I don’t know because my experience with small claims is mostly limited to a case I had against State Senator Jesse Hamilton several years ago. 29. Page 46, Line 5, “he bring” should be “he brang.” This is a verbatim nitpick. 30. Page 46, Line 17, there’s a random apostrophe at the end that should be deleted. 31. Page 47, Line 8, missing comma between “Nebraska” and “not.” 32. Page 52, Line 7, missing a question mark. 33. Page 52, Line 16, Wilson recalls the judge stating that Morales “lacks candor.” This does not appear in the transcript or audio. 34. Page 56, Line 15, “judgement” should arguably be “judgment,” but this may be a style choice. 35. Page 59, Line 8, missing a comma between “again” and “whatever.” 36. Page 59, Line 13, missing a period. 37. Page 60, Line 18, inaudible. Likely should’ve been “Maspeth.” 38. Page 62, Line 7, “judgment.” Style choice.
The invoice and transcript are available to download below.
If anybody’s still with me, this is an interesting moment for me. I am 100% for the aggressive expansion of stenography. I believe that given enough time and resources, we could do absolutely phenomenal things with court record access across the country. I will likely spend the rest of my professional career, as a stenographer at least, advocating for working reporters and looking for opportunities to bring investors to steno. But honestly, if every transcript was this good, I wouldn’t have such strong feelings about digital quality degradation from the standpoint of the people transcribing. By my review, this seems like a transcript that got adequate attention from its transcriber and proofreader. But there are inherent problems with digital recording from a time and efficiency standpoint. Two months to get a transcript is too long, excluding jurisdictional exceptions. I’d say the same with stenographers that are excessively late on their work, up to and including the times I’ve been late on my own work. We also lose words to inaudibles by doing it digitally. Luckily, no inaudible here seemed critical. Then on the efficiency angle, we’re inputting stuff at 225 WPM and cleaning it up after. They have to painstakingly transcribe, with transcription speeds generally ranging between 50 and 100 WPM. The stress on the wrists alone points to stenography being better for society.
The available data shows a majority of consumers want a qualified stenographic or stenomask reporter. As I’ve published on this blog in the past, not all court reporting firms are making best efforts to meet demand. So here are an industry insider’s tips for lawyers, law firms, paralegals, and secretaries on finding a stenographer.
NCRA PROLink – The National Court Reporters Association is our industry’s largest trade association and maintains a free national directory of qualified court reporters.
State associations – Many state associations keep “Find A Reporter” tools on their website. Some examples include New York, Florida, Kentucky, Illinois, and California. Even states without a Find A Reporter tool, like Texas, have a number you can call or an email you can write to.
Protect Your Record Project – PYRP is a consumer education nonprofit that has a Find A Stenographer feature.
Ask your court reporting firm if they’re using CoverCrow. The firm may simply work harder to find you a stenographer once it sees you know a thing or two about our field.
Check out stenographer social media. There are public communities where you can ask questions and someone will point you in the right direction. Ask if anyone has a list of court reporting services, like the one I am maintaining for New York.
Some firms, like REC, will attempt to help you find coverage even if they can’t cover. Don’t be afraid to ask your firm for a referral.
This ad will run for at least 7 days via the Stenonymous Facebook page. Anyone that wants to contribute to the blog fund and consumer awareness advertisement, feel free to use the donation box below.
Last week word spread that a ruling had been made that the Judicial Branch Certification Commission (JBCC) in Texas should investigate StoryCloud. From my outsider point of view StoryCloud was or is one of those companies obsessed with cutting corners and/or cutting the stenographer/court reporter out of the deal. That business model is flawed not only because stenography is the most technologically advanced method of taking and transcribing the spoken word, but also from a legal standpoint. In some states, pretending to be a court reporter is simply illegal.
A great big thank you to Jo Ann Byles Holmgren, who initiated the lawsuit that led to this moment. She tells it better than I ever could. In short, the JBCC refused to investigate alleged violations of law. A writ of mandamus was filed to make the government do its job. A judge ruled the JBCC should investigate. StoryCloud more or less deleted its website. Perhaps this will be a roadmap for California, where the California licensing board refuses to protect court reporting consumers and regulate digital court reporting.
I’ll be adding a transcript of the hearing as soon as it’s available.
Following the ruling, most of the StoryCloud site was trashed in favor of a little blurb.
StoryCloud’s demise is not the only good news out of Texas. Mark Kislingbury claimed the new world record at Shaunise Day’s Fearless Stenographers Conference with 370 words per minute (WPM) for one minute at 95.4% accuracy.
I am always saying that if stenographers fight, they will win. Look no further than Jo Ann Byles Holmgren telling the government they’re wrong and winning. Look no further than Shaunise Day’s masterfully done and widely-acclaimed conference — a feat rarely pulled off by an individual unless it’s an industry veteran like Marc Greenberg (StenoFest) or MaryAnn Payonk (Empowerment). Look no further than Mark Kislingbury’s own personal triumph, defeating his former world record of 360 WPM. True failure is making no attempt to meet your goals. Until one is a true failure, one has a real shot at success.
Getting attorneys to stop stipulating away their consumer choice away is an outstanding move™️, and one that everyone can take part in by spreading this image. If we do not support our national association now, there may very well not be one to support in ten years. If you’re on the fence about renewing, this would be a reason to give it one more year and see what the president does.
Thank you, President Dibble and all the staff at the NCRA for not laying down on these important issues facing our field. If we can get jurisdictions to begin enforcing procedural rules, it is progress on the road of protecting consumers and the legal record.
But they’ve made it even easier to tell they are lying and committing a fraud against the legal profession. Let’s see what Cooper has to say.
As you can see, Cooper claims you would need 82,000 students to enroll in court reporting training programs nationwide in 2019 and each year following in order to overcome the deficit.
What does US Legal say?
Wow. 82,000 enrollments needed and only 2,500 enrollments occurred. Sounds like a death knell for stenography. Right?
Liars. How do we know? In 2014, BLS told us there were 21,000 court reporters. From my own independent analysis of the numbers and NCRA statistics, there are actually closer to 27,000 or 28,000 court reporters. It does not matter whose statistics you use, the conclusion they’re lying remains the same. There was no shortage crisis in 2014. We have roughly the same number of court reporters today as we did back then. The 2013 DuckerReport told us that 70% of court reporters would retire over the next 20 years (2013-2033). 70% of that 28,000 is about 20,000 reporters. Succinctly, the retirement cliff we are trying so hard to fight is about 20,000 people if you trust NCRA and about 15,000 people if you trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
About 10% of people that start steno graduate. So if we had 82,000 enrollments a year, that’s 8,200 new stenographers per year. But look at what US Legal wrote again. “We needed 82,000 new students to enroll in court reporting training programs nationwide each year to overcome the impact.” If we, in fact, have 82,000 new students each year from 2019 to 2033 (15 years), we would have 1.23 million enrollments or 123,000 graduates. Our field would be quadruple the size it is today, and if you go by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly six times larger than it was in 2014.
To combat our retirement cliff of 20,000 people between 2019 and 2033, we need a total of 200,000 enrollments. That’s about 13,400 enrollments or 1,340 graduates a year, a number six times smaller than the one proffered by US Legal and Veritext/Cooper. If you’re six feet tall, that’s like me claiming you’re 36 feet tall. If we required 8,200 stenographers per year, about half of all depositions would be going uncovered right now (8,200 x 3 years 2019-2021, a gap and demand for 25,000 stenographers by 2021.)
If you accept Owler’s revenue numbers, Veritext controls about $490 million in revenue and US Legal controls about $100 million. That’s a combined total of $590 million. If you accept the Kentley Insights 2019 Stenotype Services market research report, that’s about 20% of our field, and they are using their power to destroy it.
590 million divided by 3 billion is almost 20%
Some have said: They’re lying. So what?
Well, the market preference is stenography.
Court Reporting Industry Outlook 2013-2014 Ducker Worldwide
We know from nonprofits like Protect Your Record Project that attorneys are being told they must accept digital because no stenographer is available even after attorneys order stenographers. So we know there’s some serious false advertising going on.
Previously, I was unsure if there was collusion between major players in the field. Considering that both are using similar language it seems unlikely that both have come independently to the same incorrect conclusion. It’s not like the two firms are enemies. They’ve lobbied together before.
It seems much more likely that following fraudster Jim Cudahy’s lead via the Speech-To-Text Institute, the two companies are involved in a plot to hurt the market and rob consumers of their choice. Quite frankly, Cudahy uses his ex-NCRA credentials to lend credibility to this fraud. After all, STTI has been instrumental in creating the propaganda ruining our field. STTI was, without a doubt, created for the sole purpose of promulgating propaganda and facilitating the ongoing fraud, against its stated mission of representing all modalities in speech-to-text transcription. STTI’s lies are also easy to see through.
Virginia Lawyers Weekly
A gap of 11,000 predicted by 2023 according to a recent study. What study was that? None. The year 2023 doesn’t appear in the Ducker Report. At best, these numbers are extrapolated from an outdated report that could not account for the positive recruitment impact of NCRA A to Z, Project Steno, and Open Steno — initiatives that Jim Cudahy should have known about in 2019.
Unless you believe 2 + 2 = 24, the stenographer shortage is being exaggerated and exacerbated by Veritext and US Legal Support. And now you have a brief video to help explain it directly to attorneys.
Lawyers, court administrators, and support staff, there is a real struggle taking place in the United States court reporting industry today. For the last eight years, we have known that there would be a stenographic court reporter shortage. We knew because our national association commissioned the 2013-2014 Court Reporting Industry Outlook by Ducker Worldwide, colloquially known as our Ducker Report. In response to that, many initiatives to recruit stenographers were born including National Court Reporters Association A to Z program, Project Steno, and Open Steno. As of today, there are far more schools for stenographic reporting in the United States than there are for transcribers. If we base our count on NCRA-approved schools against AAERT approved schools, the ratio is about 5:1. Stenographic court reporters are by far better equipped to handle the shortage. But there is a lie being sold about us, our shortage is being exaggerated and exacerbated by companies that stand to profit from it.
In our industry there are stenographic court reporters, voice writers, and digital court reporters. Stenography’s all about taking down verbatim notes on a stenotype. Voice writing is all about speaking into an automatic speech recognition (ASR) system tuned to the reporter’s voice. Digital reporting sees the reporter record the audio, which is then distributed to transcribers. About two years ago a nonprofit called STTI popped onto the field and started spreading the lie that the stenographer shortage would be nearly impossible to solve, citing the Ducker Report and “industry experts” that believed they could predict what the field would look like 20 years from now. They claimed they wanted to be an authority in all speech-to-text modalities but it’s fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that it’s an attack on consumer choice. Ducker could not have been clearer that market preference was stenography:
Court Reporting Industry Outlook 2013-2014, Ducker Worldwide. Page 6.
The conclusions STTI drew were so wrong it appears intentional. Jim Cudahy was the Executive Director of NCRA when the Ducker Report was made, and yet so many years later ended up in the STTI camp using his NCRA experience to help lend credibility to the false idea that our shortage was impossible to solve. An opportunist, he saw a chance to lead the charge into an “emerging” market and he took it, business 101. Large corporations in my field started to push the same lie, likely due to financial pressure. Veritext started trying to train lawyers to allow for digital reporting in their deposition notices, Planet Depos started to build the digital side of its business. Verbit flip flopped between telling investors there was 99% accuracy and that technology would not replace the human. The race was on to legitimize digital reporting in your minds as consumers. This is being done despite some evidence that it would put already-marginalized groups of speakers at risk and the fact that it is less efficient. Utilizing digital reporting would take the production of the transcript offshore, out of range of your subpoena power, and make it much easier for tampering to occur.
If any other field has a shortage, sellers jack up prices. In ours, despite the fact that we are behind inflation in some markets, some of our biggest sellers were now pushing for our replacement. They were telling consumers no stenographer was available, but they weren’t using any of our numerous Facebook groups, LinkedIn, or our national database of stenographers to recruit us. This lie did not go completely unchallenged. Nonprofits like Protect Your Record organized to get the word out, but they were up against corporations that, according to Owler, control a combined revenue amount of over half a billion dollars. Our field, comprised of 88% women, was being bamboozled and blitzed by the message that companies were only going digital out of need. “Of course stenographers are the gold standard, there just are not enough of them.” It was a game of messaging and perception that we were losing.
I had identified a pattern of “shifting narratives” and I used my love of reading and writing to document what I could so that the truth would not be lost. It was through this documentation that the New York State Court Reporters Association, Association of Surrogate’s and Supreme Court Reporters, and many other unions were able to give the New York State Unified Court System a warning on the dangers of automating trial transcription. This work was having a real impact and giving us the power to communicate our importance to the legal field in more concrete terms. Some of my work even got republished by NCRA in industry media and social media. I became a part of changing the false messaging and misconceptions killing my profession.
While court reporters on social media were debating whether companies were utilizing digital court reporters, I was documenting as much as I could and trying to urge my colleagues to push back. My attention was raised to US Legal Support building its digital business and how, in the Holly Moose v US Legal Case, despite 70% of its business coming from court reporters, it claimed it was not organized as a shorthand reporting firm and therefore should be immune to regulations meant to protect consumers in California. Moose lost the case from a failure to prove the injury element, but we now had valuable information, the company was willing to do and say anything to benefit itself. Sounds like a bold claim, but let’s be real, they don’t advertise themselves as “not a shorthand reporting firm.”
Remember, we were 70% of their business as of the Holly Moose case.
While outwardly professing that it wanted stenographers, it was doing everything in its power to sabotage us. Stenotrain was acquired by US Legal and apparently mismanaged into oblivion. US Legal was aggressively recruiting digital court reporters on LinkedIn as recently as May 2021, but no such effort was made to get stenographers. In July 2021, a JD Supra article was put up by the company that claimed the stenographer shortage would be nearly impossible to solve and set up an equation to give it the appearance of credibility. Their numbers were extrapolated from an eight year old report and likely outdated, but even assuming those numbers to be true, the equation, if reiterated in perpetuity, would lead to negative stenographers, which is logically impossible if you’re getting 200 new stenographers a year. The equation assumed the retirements would always be constant and did not acknowledge any of the recruitment efforts at the top of this page. I realized there was a major inaccuracy, and I started to spread the word that we could not rely on these large corporations to be honest with us or our clients.
Reality is simple: Move some numbers around and anything sounds good. But did that make it true? No.
A real breakthrough came when I got a US Legal rep to admit they had not been using NCRA PRO Link / Sourcebook, our national directory of stenographers, to recruit us. How could they dare make a claim that stenographers were not available when they were not utilizing a database consisting of roughly one third of the field? Worse than that, prior to publishing my September 9 article, court reporters reported not being contacted by larger firms. The best we had was a vague promise from Rick Levy that US Legal would look into whether it was “viable” to use the directory to recruit stenographers. After I publicly cried foul, they started to use the directory to recruit stenographers that same day! When it became clear I was going public with these allegations, they went from “looking into it” to attempting to cover up the fraud they had perpetrated on the legal community.
You have to ask yourself why a stenographer living paycheck to paycheck could figure out that the best way to recruit stenographers was to utilize free national resources and the $100 million corporation could not.
There was a part of the puzzle I had and held close to the chest. I had been given emails from the NCRA Firmowners listserv from May 2021 where representatives from US Legal got into a “debate” with a group of court reporters. In my assessment the discussion was rife with obfuscations, distractions, and gaslighting. But their Chief Strategy Officer at the time, Peter Giammanco, gave us a window into what’s going on.
Does it matter if it’s legal? Man’s on a mission.
In a wall of text designed to cast doubt in everyone reading, he writes “Does it really matter if done legally and ethically and both methods end with the same final accurate transcript?” This is an example of the straw man argument. Given that court reporters are twice as good as your average person at taking down dialects like African American Vernacular English (AAVE) even though we have no formal training in it, there is no reason to believe that anyone else will have the same final accurate transcript. These companies won’t tell you that people like Allison Hall are successfully cutting the training time of some stenographers in half or that our recruitment efforts have exploded in the last eight years, they’ll just keep repeating their narrative, and as I just showed you, they do not care if it is legal or ethical. They do not care what is true. The positions they hold are not based on merit or honest debate, they are based on a mission or agenda. This comports with anecdotes I’ve received. Here in New York an acquaintance expressed her desire to leave our field, and US Legal offered her work as a digital court reporter. Meanwhile, these companies are not telling digital reporters that stenographic reporting is an option. Concurrently, companies are telling everyone that stenography is the gold standard and there just aren’t enough of us. Given that it would take as many as eight transcribers to replace a single stenographer, one has to wonder why there was no attempt to encourage digital court reporters to join the gold standard of stenography. It’s a lie so blatant and disgusting that I regularly try reaching out to digital court reporters to let them know what’s coming.
Most of the email images are available for download here. I’d just like to point out from those emails that when dealing with the women of my profession, including the very president of our association, C. Phipps, both men were happy to go on and on bashing NCRA’s organizational approach and falsely accuse L. Freiler of libel. It’s quite telling that when I reached out, there was dead silence.
I publish the emails because this is a matter of public importance. This mission that has been admitted to, to replace stenographers with recorders, will threaten access to justice. It is also almost certainly consumer fraud. What else do you call a concerted effort to make it seem as though stenographers are not available when there has been such an abject failure to attempt to recruit any of them in addition to the incredible mistreatment of the workforce? They rely on our consumers being too busy to pay attention to the situation. Asked for comment by me via email on August 12th, Peter didn’t respond, and US Legal asked me to take them off their mailing list. They’re confident you’re not reading my work or that you will throw your hands up and say “not my problem.” They are counting on you being complicit in the suffering and struggle of our young reporters.
How did we get here? Our field is one of mostly independent contractors. Many of us meet the definition of common law employees, but there’s basically no government enforcement there and so any misclassification claims are handled on a case-by-case basis if they’re raised by the court reporter. The only one I ever read about was settled. As independent contractors, we can be considered competitors with these large firms, and therefore the institutions meant to advocate for us have their hands tied. Our court reporter associations cannot call any one company a liar, lest they be accused of group boycott. They do not allow discussion of rates, lest they be accused of anticompetitive behavior. Thrust into a field where large corporations may assert any false claim without being checked, federally-protected discussions of pay are categorically banned, and almost none of us have the legal knowledge to navigate the nuances of employment law, the stenographic reporter has a whole lot stacked against her. We are a field that largely has none of the employee protections written into law. And we have seen as a society just what corporate culture does to women who have those protections. The stenographic reporter? She prevails despite that.
I may not be a woman, but for a decade I have watched my colleagues recount mistreatment and abuse. I will not stand for it longer. If society is seeking a gender pay gap, it need not look further than this situation we find ourselves in. When our field was male dominated, it rose to such prominence and importance that it has a nonprofit in almost every state dedicated to it. As the field transitioned to majority women, rates were frozen. Adjusted for inflation, the average American worker’s pay rose about 58 cents over the last decade. Adjusted for inflation, the stenographic reporter’s pay fellover the last 30 years, in some cases, by nearly 50%. Corporations have court reporters and captioners working much harder today for far less value than 30 or 40 years ago, have made no genuine effort to fix the shortage situation, and then they have the nerve to tell courts and attorneys we aren’t available. It’s like lighting somebody’s house on fire while they’re sleeping, throwing a few droplets of water on it, and telling the firemen you did your best and there’s nobody in the house to rescue.
We need your help. We need you to take a brief but intense interest in our little field of about 30,000 so that we can continue to serve you and the public. Talk to each other about the court reporting service you’re using, talk to your court reporter, start comparing prices. There is a kind of gambling or cost shifting built into our pricing structure that makes it confusing, but ultimately consumers have the power here. You are some of the most educated people on the planet. Whether by legislation or choice, you can make a profound difference in our future. Pass this up to your bosses. Ask them to read it. Ask them whether these are the kinds of businesses we want to entrust the creation of the legal record to. If you’ve been told a stenographic reporter is not available, consider asking some more questions, because there’s a big chance you’re being lied to. Considering investing in stenographic schools or companies. Consider using PRO Link to find a reporter yourself. And of course consider introducing the recruitment resources at the top of this post to someone in your life. We need stenographic court reporters, and all indications are that we will for a long, long time. For my part in it, I will answer any questions I can at ChristopherDay227@gmail.com.
As in the Columbus Bar Lawyers Quarterly, Spring 2020, Caveat Emptor!
To My Usual Readers:
Court reporters, I stand on the backs of all of you at this point. Without your hard work I wouldn’t have been in a position to publish this story. But if we don’t get it in front of people, this is for nothing. I have made about $400 in donations these past two weeks and I will sacrifice every dime of it to boost this post. If you can afford a donation, please send $20. If you cannot, please consider sending this to lawyers and/or tagging a local bar association on the Facebook and Twitter campaign. They cannot be expected to be experts in our industry. We must guide them. Every state is important, but California, Texas, Illinois, and New York are where the majority of our business is, and where the shortage lies can hurt us most. This is not new. This is something we felt in 2019 and now have much more concrete evidence of.
It’s now clear our institutions are not equipped to handle liars, and it is therefore vital for us to seek out allies among the legal community who will see this for what it is, an attack on their choice as consumers; an attack on their clients’ access to justice; and an attack on a field of women and introverts where it was assumed nobody would have the guts to say anything because nobody has bothered to say anything for at least three decades.
I understand why freelancers are hesitant to speak up against companies. They sign your paychecks. The often unsung threat of them withholding work from you leaves you feeling powerless. But if we want a field that has integrity, then we must act now and sound the alarm so that these levels of dishonesty are never seen again. Court reporting firms need to be at least as terrified of dishonesty as we are of speaking against it. I resigned from my board position and asked you to trust me. Trust that action will spare future generations of reporters from sitting silent as their quality of life is eroded year after year. We have to break the silence on the silent problem facing our nation’s courtrooms and spend just a little energy on writing our own collective story.
Spreading through social media is a clip from John Belcher. He talks about how he got his dream job as a prosecutor, which allowed him to be in court almost every day and work with court reporters and other court staff. He talks about all the things that court reporters hope attorneys talk about. Some key takeaways?
Don’t do something you wouldn’t do in front of the judge. They read the transcripts.
Don’t step on the witness. Count to four before starting the next question or answer.
Speak a little slower. He suggests 70% speed.
Don’t disrespect opposing counsel, the witness, the court reporter, or other attendees.
Be careful about side discussions that take away or distract from the proceeding.
Adding fillers at the beginning of questions like “okay” or “perfect” may create bad habits for trial questioning.
Preparation is key. Expecting the court reporter to put up your exhibits for you may burn valuable time.
Don’t take it from me, check out his video on LinkedIn today! You can also see his YouTube here.
This month I had a chance to sit down with Marc Russo of MGR Reporting. Marc’s a working reporter and business owner. We got to hit a lot of topics in this video, including Marc’s history in the field, how reporter skill relates to reporter treatment, and how scheduling ahead can help reporting firms fill their clients’ needs.
Using Marc’s words, it’s about treating reporters like people instead of numbers.
