Depp v Heard Steno Discussion

So the Depp v Heard trial has been dominating headlines for a while. It wasn’t good enough for stenography industry news until it started popping up on stenographer social media. Questions started to surface about a video that allegedly showed Judy Bellinger, a stenographer covering the trial, hugging Johnny Depp at an after party. There was skepticism on the part of many stenographers, and it was eventually revealed that the moment captured on camera actually occurred when Judy went to get her equipment.

An outrage story turned into a feel-good one, at least until Judy was quoted as saying some jurors were dozing off.

Image may be stolen from the Speak Up For The Record group.

Once again, stenographer social media was alight with a mix of support and outrage. For some of us, having somebody tell it like it is is cathartic. Many take issue with a court reporter commenting so publicly on specific identifiable proceedings she reported.

Now, I’m an advocate for the integrity of our profession. My personal stance is that I’ll agree with just about anyone that believes we shouldn’t be commenting much on our cases. But I have to give substantial credit, Bellinger’s managed to get more press coverage for the word stenographer than I have, and I’ve put considerable effort in.

One thing I spotted on social media? Stenographer stress. I’d like to offer some new perspectives to diminish that stress. This is a chance for all of us to go back to our mentees and professional circles and have a discussion about best practices. It’s ultimately about growth. I know many of us feel that one bad incident or “misspeaking” can reflect poorly on us all. But I’ve come to a realization that few professions have that sort of thinking, and the ones that do, such as law enforcement, have it thrust on them by media, they don’t agree and say “ah, yes, a cop did an arguably questionable thing, so we’re all questionable!” We need to let go of that mindset of absolutism for our own sanity and advancement.

As for advancement, I would propose steering the discussions toward what we tell our students. As of writing, I would propose the following:

  • On the initial video that showed the hug. Let our students know that there are cameras just about everywhere and that guarding against the appearance of impropriety is important. This is not to say that Judy Bellinger did anything wrong, but we still have a valid discussion in that it is a tricky thing to guard against the “appearance” of something because everyone has a slightly different bar for “appearance.” For example, my only training on guarding against the appearance of impropriety, which I had over half a decade ago, involved second guessing even shaking a party’s hand in court. There are also state and regional attitudes to consider.
  • On the quote about jurors dozing off, I have to say that my personal stance is to generally avoid commenting on matters I’ve taken, especially if they are identifiable. This is not to say I believe court reporters should never have or even express an opinion. Again, this is not to say Judy Bellinger did anything wrong. But there are ways to make comments about sleeping jurors without making comments about sleeping jurors. “You know, I’ve been doing this for X years, and I notice that sometimes jurors don’t appear to be paying full attention.” “What about in this case?” “I decline to comment on this case.” I’d propose going ahead and having a discussion with students about talking to the media.
  • On the right v wrong argument. No matter where you sit on the spectrum of any argument or debate, there’s a “reality wins” component. For an idea of how this works, we can examine my blogging. I’ve made the case many times that the pay in New York is atrocious to the point of being “wrong.” Some court reporting companies do not care and continue to pay stenographers less than $3.50 per page. The reality of the situation changes dependent upon how successful I am at applying social and/or economic pressure and not how “right” I am. Similarly, in an analysis of whether Judy Bellinger did anything wrong, being right means very little. The real challenge is in creating, communicating, and seeing through the adoption of better ways to handle similar situations. Training our students to be solution-oriented people and avoid the black-and-white, good-versus-evil thinking that grips many of us, including myself from time to time, will create better outcomes.

I have no idea what might arise as a result of the media coverage. Should new developments arise, I’ll post an addendum. Please feel free to comment below even if you disagree with my assessment! I’ve never censored a non-spam comment and don’t intend to start!

Interview with Esquire GC

Pingback: Shortage Solutions 1.

After reviewing the Esquire Deposition Solutions, LLC’s article about their remote court reporting solution to the the ongoing court reporting shortage, I reached out to Esquire and got a prompt response from Avi Stadler, former litigation attorney and current General Counsel at Esquire.

Across social media, reporters have been wondering about this initiative and what it might mean for them personally and the field as a whole. We’ve gotten a good first look at what the program is and how it might develop, and we encourage all readers to keep on reading about it below. Note that the following is not a verbatim transcript but a recitation of what was said.

We asked:

  1. When did the remote deposition initiative start? We’ve found articles dating back to at least 2017 for Esquire being a leader in promoting remote depositions.

A. Actually, the program started very recently. Where there might be some confusion is we first promoted remote depositions, which are the attorneys appearing remotely and the court reporter with the witness. Now we’re rolling out remote court reporting, which is the court reporter appearing remotely in jurisdictions where that is permitted by law.

2. Did the Ducker Report and forecasted shortage play a role in the development of the remote deposition technology and program?

A. The shortage isn’t forecasted, it’s here. We are having issues every day with covering work. That said, we are looking at remote reporting as our flagship approach to the shortage that will allow reporters to cover more jobs and stack depos without wasting travel time, gas, and money. If a reporter has to commute two hours there and two hours back, that’s four hours lost. This can give reporters back that time.

3. Is there any special training required or is it an intuitive program?

A. We do train reporters rigorously, but the technology is not very complex. We’re starting this program in our offices so there are always dedicated Esquire staff there to help. If the program is very popular, we may actually expand it to other locations after proper testing and quality assurance.

5. What states is Esquire looking for remote stenographers in?

A. Several. We are not giving out legal advice, but we do have a document which cited some of the laws in various states that I’d be happy to give you. Notably, Texas and Florida do not allow remote swearing of witnesses so we do not offer remote reporter in those states. Federal depositions may be remotely reported, and we are exploring that as well.

6. Is it true that 70 percent of reporters are retiring by 2023? The Ducker Report seems to suggest 2033.

A. I’m not entirely sure. There may be a typo in our article — but I’ll say this: demand is outpacing supply. At the time the Ducker Report was written in 2013, the average age of reporters was about 51 and now it is 57. At that time, there were 1500 new entrants expected and 5100 set to retire, so we all have some work to do together to close that gap and meet the demands of our clients and the industry. Anecdotally, it has become increasingly difficult to cover jobs. We’ve even asked for coverage from other agencies at times and still been unable to cover.

7. Any specific areas pop out as being difficult to cover?

A. California has been very challenging. We’ve even talked to the California Deposition Reporters Association about it, and they’ve said the same. Other than that, non-metro areas. For example, border towns in Texas can be hard to cover. Unfortunately, again, Texas does not permit remote swearing of witnesses. Rural areas are difficult to cover.

8. Has the forecasted shortage increased opportunities for reporters in terms of work or pay?

A. More work is definitely available for stenographers. I wish more people would pass the tests. It’s a great career. Our mission is to ensure the sanctity of the record is preserved, very much like all of you. So there’s a ton of opportunity and more people should get into it.

9. Has the forecasted shortage increased court reporting costs?

A. Costs have definitely gone up. Court reporters are charging more. Some companies are paying hundreds of dollars in bounties to get jobs paid. It’s a difficult situation, and that’s not sustainable.

10. With the remote court reporting program, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with local laws?

A. Well, we are not giving legal advice to our clients. But, again, I have a document I’ll share with you that cites the laws in various states and that we are confident in. Ultimately, our clients have to be comfortable with remote court reporting and whether or not it’s allowed in their jurisdiction.

11. Is Esquire running any stenographer training programs?

A. We do offer a mentorship in all of our offices where a new reporter can be paired with a more experienced reporter. We also engage with state court reporting associations and have occasional programs related to court reporting, continuing education, and business. For example, last year we had a program “Like A Boss.” That program was designed to help with the challenges of being an independent contractor and offered tax tips. Finally, we work very closely with the schools. Here in Atlanta we offer to have reporting students tour the office, see what we do, and get a feel for what it’s all about. We also have an internship program that allows students to sit out with Esquire reporters to gain deposition experience.  We’ve had over 30 interns across the country participate over the last 3 quarters.  Additionally, we offer two scholarship opportunities each quarter to our interns.

12. Any other initiatives or ideas you’d like to tell stenographers or clients? Anything you’d like to tell us at all?

A. My boss — the CEO of this company — loves this industry. Her son is currently completing service in the army and plans to enter court reporting school after that. We are all committed to the industry. Personally, I see it as Esquire freeing court reporters to do what they do best, making the record, while Esquire takes care of the sales, marketing, production, collection and pay.

And there you have it. Often on this blog we encourage readers to think critically and always be informed. Today’s no different. Be informed, be inspired, and be ready to realize that there are a lot of opportunities out there for the working reporter and aspiring entrepreneur. There’s a big demand for reporting, and stenographers have the capability to fill it. There’s a big demand for solutions to problems. For example, perhaps many of our readers feel the stenographer should have a physical presence so that the stenographer remains a fixture at proceedings. That’s good! It’s another perspective which can lead to more and better solutions.

So whether you come away from the blog thinking you want to work with Esquire or thinking you’ve got way better ideas, I’ve got to encourage you to get out there and do it. Say it. Be a part of the conversation and lead your peers to be more marketable, professional, and ready for the future.