Chris - An excellent article. Well thought out, articulate and logical. I hope you continue to write on the subject.
Candace Kahn

Chris,

I’m afraid you’ve only added to the “urban myths and deep seated prejudices.”

I’ve had the opportunity to work as a steno reporter, an ER monitor (or whatever you want to call it), a transcriber, a court manager…virtually all aspects of the court reporting profession. In my opinion, you missed the mark several times. (And it is only my opinion.)

“…assumption that electronic recording (ER) is cheaper than a court reporter.”
In my experience as a court manager, I can tell you there can be significant savings WITHOUT sacrificing quality.

“The American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers….”
This association is certainly not the definitive word on how an ER system should be operated or maintained. (this section edited by author) And I can tell you that there are certainly economies of scale when it comes to having ER monitors for several courtrooms, as opposed to a one-to-one relationship monitor-to-courtroom. It is more than “merely a court reporter being replaced by technology, but by equipment and replacement staffing.”

“Moreover, court reporters act largely independently, while ER monitors require closer supervision…”
Absolutely false! So false!!!

“Second, transcript production cost savings are achieved by a court reporter using computer-aided transcription software and privately-paid staff, both of which (technology and staffing) would become court costs when using ER.”
Again, false. This is a much longer discussion than I have time for here, but suffice it to say that transcription firms (such as the one that is closely allied with AAERT) are plentiful and that their transcription rates are very competitive with court reporters (at least in the DC area).

“A free market inquiry among private transcribers to produce a transcript from ER vs a court reporter results in costs as much as 3 times higher.”
I’m not sure where you gleaned this information; but, again, in my experience, the costs associated with sending, receiving, QA’ing orders for transcripts to a vendor are much lower than having a court reporter produce the transcript.

“Court network and server costs tend to rise, as well, because creating, transmitting and storing huge audio files is something most tech infrastructures cannot support without significant upgrades.”
No doubt there are costs with designing and installing a new ER system. However, the actual storage of audio files part of your comment is false. Storage is very, VERY cheap (and you know this, Chris). I can tell you that five years of online audio for 94 courtrooms will cost approximately $150k. (And … no … I am NOT saying it only costs $150k to install ER. I’m just addressing the fact that storage is very inexpensive.)

“There is no argument that court reporters produce a more accurate record. A microphone failing to pick up utterances, or picking up competing noises means that side-by-side comparisons of transcripts shows a substantial amount of inaudibles in a typical ER setting. This is exacerbated if an ER monitor is not present. And if that missing piece is a ruling or critical testimony, the impact could be very costly indeed.”
You will not get an argument from me that, on the whole, court reporters are better trained and do (again…ON AVERAGE) a better job of putting a transcript together. However, that being said, there are many, many court reporters who are poor writers, don’t have good, up-to-date equipment and/or skills and, therefore, do a less-than-adequate job of transcription.

“That means judges, lawyers and litigants are losing productivity when they are given a tape vs a transcript.”
We have provided audio to judges who are going on vacation or working from home or what have you, and they love the convenience it offers. They absolutely love being able to take multiple days of audio on a CD with them on vacation. (Hey, I would never do that on vacation; but they love it.) We do not give audio to lawyers or litigants; they order transcripts.

“And once again, if an ER monitor is not present, that means a tape is not annotated….”
We annotate the start and stop times of all hearings and much of what happens in the hearings. Additionally, our judges can — if they choose to — enter private tags into a proceeding that only they can see. So the ER system gives them that added value.

“It means that there are appropriate hearing types that lend themselves to a court reporter solution and others that would be better suited for ER. Generally speaking, the higher the stakes (felony, complex civil, etc), the more instance of requiring a transcript and the sooner a transcript is needed, the better suited for a court reporter. The lower the stakes (infractions, some misdemeanors, etc.) and the lower the need for transcript, the better suited for ER.”
We do not make the distinction between “higher” and “lower” stakes. ALL of our hearings are important, and we make sure EVERYTHING is treated as if it were “high stakes.” Tell the person in a misdemeanor case that the ER system failed and a transcript cannot be produced or that the ER system was not monitored or installed correctly and the audio is of poor quality. That person will not be satisfied with your explanation or excuse. To him or her, their case IS HIGH STAKES.

“The result is that courtroom clerks have become key punch operators furiously typing minutes among their other duties.”
Our clerks do not take “minutes.”

“Since everything that a courtroom clerk enters into the data system also resides in a court reporter’s stenographic notes, it is merely a matter of tagging, blocking and sweeping selected portions of the verbatim record from the court reporter to the clerk so it may be edited and swept into the data system.”
Oh, you make it sound so easy! As if a courtroom clerk has time to monitor the realtime feed form a court reporter and decide what to cut and paste…with the assumption that they wouldn’t have to edit the section. You know that case management systems have many shortcuts and that there is little need for extensive typing.

Chris, I have great respect for your knowledge and experience. But I’m afraid you’ve only muddied the waters further with this blog.

Regards,
Gregg

In addition, it should be noted that the human element of court reporting cannot be underestimated. With 80% of our communication being non-verbal, much of what is said is enhanced by how it is said and the mannerisms, etc. that is delivered with the speech by the person speaking. No ER system can duplicate this unique human quality.

To Kim and Candace … thanks for the feedback and your observations.

To Gregg … great minds such as ours can occasionally disagree, as we have done on this topic. I will only respond by saying:

1) The greatest instances of dissatisfaction with ER is when there is no monitor.

2) The greatest instances of screw-up of the record occurs when there is no monitor.

3) We all lose when this becomes and either-or debate.

I continue to advocate peaceful co-existence, naive as that may sound to you.

THANKS !!!!!!!!!!

To Gregg…. I agree with much but not all you have stated. I do need to correct you on your comment about the American Association of Electronic Reporter and Transcriber’s (AAERT) history. AAERT was founded by electronic reporters who had decades of experience in the industry, individually, not collectively.

I don’t know where you got your information that stenos started the association, but that is absolutely incorrect.

UPDATE 2/16/10: Gregg asked that I remove that reference.

Right you are, Jan … I could find no one in the steno world to confirm Gregg’s claim that AAERT was founded by or some front for court reporters. UPDATE 2/16/10: Gregg asked that I remove that reference.

I just completed my first year learning stenography, and now I don’t know if I should continue or not. I love and am good at it, but I do not want to pursue this if the job won’t be around for me in 10 years. Any advice on this? Will court reporters be obsolete soon?

Do not despair, Adrian. Court reporting is a noble profession in which talented practitioners will ALWAYS have meaningful employment. Here are several examples:

1) There will always be a need for official court reporters in courtrooms for high stakes cases. Electronic recording will take some of this market, but not all by any means.

2) Deposition reporting is still a lucrative field and freelance work can be rewarding both from its freedom and its compensation.

3) Closed captioning is big and getting bigger.

My advice is to write realtime and embrace technology. Your future will be bright !!!

The threat of ER has been around since I started court reporting in about 1980. It’s now 2009, almost 2010, and we are going to be around for a long time to come. Well trained court reporters provide an excellent record, and our realtime skills have yet to be matched by technology. So hurry up, Adrian - our profession needs you!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE –
January 26, 2010

Contact: Randel Raison, President AAERT
800.233.5306 or 713.637.8864
randel.raison@aaert.org or aaert.org

American Association of Electronic Reporters & Transcribers Commends Conference of State Court Administrators for White Paper: “Digital Recording: Changing Times for Making the Record”

January 26, 2010; Wilmington, DE –

The American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) applauds the release of the Conference of State Court Administrators’ white paper entitled: “Digital Recording: Changing Times for Making the Record.”

Randel Raison, President of AAERT, issued the following statements:

“As a professional association of certified and trained digital court reporters and transcribers, AAERT agrees with the findings of the COSCA report. We are the daily users of advanced digital recording technology. AAERT has advocated strict standards of best practices for digital recording in courtrooms and deposition settings since 1994.

AAERT, as the author of digital reporting standards and practices, has always sought to have a place at the table when court reporting methods are evaluated. Biased and misleading information regarding unfamiliar technology has all too frequently been published. The COSCA white paper was fair in evaluating digital audio recording as a reliable and efficient method for courtroom use.

We invite COSCA or any users of the report to contact us for further information on implementing best practices for successful use of this reliable state-of-the-art technology. As a leader in the use of digital reporting technology, AAERT has certified professionals capable of filling court reporting and transcribing positions currently available.

Indeed, we do live in changing economic times where cost-saving methods must be put into place without sacrificing quality especially when the technology advocated is tried, tested, and used the world over. Digital recording of court proceedings is accurate, verbatim, verifiable, unfiltered, accessible to all and is being used successfully in courtrooms worldwide. Digital audio recording is not merely the wave of the future, it has been and is a reality now in courtrooms around the globe.”

ABOUT AAERT:
AAERT is the digital / electronic court reporting industry’s professional association in the United States. The American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation organized to provide education and certification for professionals engaged in electronic reporting, transcribing, and supportive employment roles, and to promote public awareness and acceptance of the electronic reporting industry. For more information, visit http://www.aaert.org.

Yeah, this is a hugely important report that is bound to stir up the debate. For a copy, visit:

http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/WhitePapers/DigitalRecording-Jan-2010.pdf

Who knows what the AG in Ontario is ultimately going to do with its 500 plus court reporters. This is a time in history where we steno court reporters can no longer think that we are God’s only gift to the courtroom. Go back to the 1940’s, pen writers were telling their judges that steno reporters (with their then noisy machines) would be distracting and whispered more unkind comments about the stenos. Guess what? They disappeared. Will voice-writers capable of doing realtime in two or more languages - if they are more than just unilingual - quickly replace the stenos - when the hardware and software permit it? You’re darn right. And guess what? We court reporters who run businesses like Kim are thinking about that right now - otherwise - guess what - just like the airline business - losing millions in business every year because of simple Skype to SKype videoconferencing technology - that’s free - technology that the Judicial Conference is constantly revising Rule 30 in taking depositions - allowing lawyers to take depos by remote - even suggesting in the rule that a party need not have to use a steno reporter - but simply use a tape recorder or video - So what does this all mean? Competition. Competition. Competition. We have to stay vigilant and know who our competition is and redesign our mousetrap to keep the business - both in terms of hardware - and prices - As far as I am concerned all those states in the United States that went just digital, that is an opportunity for we realtime writers. I would just as soon lobby the local criminal bars and say, “When you need a realtime writer in that courtroom and you have a client who is willing to pay for a realtime record, call on us. I am also a CART reporter. I would just as soon tell a digital courtroom judge’s court administrator, “You keep your audio system as the official record. Let me dial into the courtroom’s speaker phone system and I will hear the proceedings with your digital mics and speakers patched into that speaker phone system, I will give the judge and the lawyers realtime via the Internet directly into their iPhones, BlackBerries and standard PCs and during the day update a cleaned up file at no additional charge that will have time stamping in the margin to coincide with the court’s audio CD, and all I want is $150 per hour for my time, and that fee can be split between or amongst the parties. Then the contractor who has the duty to type appeals, guess what, I will give them my almost near perfect record so they can, if there is an appeal, start proofing my work against the court’s official record audio CD! So give me a heaving duty trial that goes for a few days, let me make $800 or more a day just writing. Guess what? No transcript to do. I have a life! So, bring it on! Let the courts keep their digital audio system as the official record. I don’t have a problem with that. For sure, anybody who still does it the “old fashion way” they are doomed. We have to, we must, we have no choice, keep changing and adapting. We are here to serve the best interests of society as a whole. We are not entitled to a job delivered to us on a silver platter and think that we are there forever without forces beyond our control affecting our jobs, the very essence of how we perform our work. Silicon Valley will make sure of that. If you cannot take the heat in the kitchen, it’s time to move out and take up another profession or vocation. So if you are like me, and you want to SAVE court reporting as it is changing its essence in the 21st century, then think real hard about where you want to be in five years in your business if you are a freelancer like I am. You can behave like an oak tree, ever so tall and sturdy or you can be a blade of grass. But when a hurricane comes (technology) guess who is left standing?

One more thought. Guess whose fault it is for allowing audio into the courtrooms of America and Canada? Every steno reporter who loved reporting in the courtroom. How so? By not volunteering our time to mentor others taking up the steno machine. By our selfish attitude in not making sure our local and state and national associations took up the cause a long long time ago to inspire young minds and fast fingers to take up our profession. True enough most of us didn’t have the time. We have husbands, wives, children to take care of when we get home. That was and is our first priority and while we did those things we forgot to take 30 minutes a month to write and talk to our association leaders, “Hey, what are we going to do for damage control when the hurricane hits?” Did we lobby back in the 1960s and 1970s Congress and State Legislatures for funding to keep court reporting schools going and help out as mentors to give testimony to new entrants onto the stage of an exciting career? Some did for sure. But some is far too few and now far too late to turn back the clock. No, the courts and court administrators don’t hate us. They see what’s happening. Court reporting schools are closing. Some programs are taking far too long to graduate students. When we baby boomers retire, and we are, those of us who are 60 and more, take a look at that bell curve. Court administrators and chief judges understand far too well the gravity of the situation and they - unlike us court reporters - are only protecting the best interests of society as a whole - they have to do what they got to do - and for some of you in-court court reporters - it’s not going to be pretty. In the meantime, I predict a big opportunity for us remote CART reporters - start making friends with high priced defense lawyers in criminal cases - start letting those civil lawyers who always ordered daily copy their civil trials - let them know they can still have realtime and daily - and if I ever get my way, I would rather be in Italy all year long enjoying the Italian coastline but dialing into a speaker phone system at some Utah, Alaska, Iowa, Florida, providing realtime transcription and this was all made possible because a lot of us did not care what was happening in the 1960s and since as I have heretofore described. Comments anyone?

Good points, all, Steve. In my view, the court reporting profession needs to reinvent itself to add such value to their product as to become indispensable. Technology is key, as is revisiting what a transcript is. Thanks for your thoughful comments.

Gregg,

As a business person who owns a court reporeting company and having been asked to transcribe the tapes that come from courtrooms with ER, I can assureyou the transcript quality is not as good as if there were a live reporter present using stenography to create the record. There are so many instances of blips in the recording, non-identified speakers, people shuffling paperworkon the microphones, and a myriad of other things that it takes sometimes three or four times longer to transcribe from a recording. This will never equal cost savings for the court system, nor will it provide an acurrate transcript. Students, stay in stenotypy school. There is a future for you, and we need you.

Thanks for the comment, Rosalie … I agree that there is more to this that first meets the eye. There has to be an affirmative understanding that there will be a loss of quality with an ER transcript, and this quality drops drastically when there is no ER monitor present to do equipment checks, intervene if sound quality drops and annotate the record.

If you were involved in a lawsuit that could possibly change your life forever, what would be your choice in making sure every point you made was correctly transcribed: a recorder (machine) or a court reporter (human being)?