The debate over court reporters
Posted by: justiceserved in Court Management, Technology, The Future 
There are some subjects so filled with urban myths and deep seated prejudices that any rational discussion is difficult. The question of whether court reporters are “better” than electronic recording is one of these subjects.
COST
The first stumbling block in the quest for truth is the automatic assumption that electronic recording (ER) is cheaper than a court reporter. In some respects, this is true, but in many other respects this is not true. First, tape recorders don’t (and shouldn’t) run themselves. The American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers recommends: At all times, electronic recording equipment should be overseen by an experienced reporter, who also takes simultaneous notes regarding the proceedings. In digital systems, these notes can be very extensive. This means in terms of personnel costs, it is not 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, resulting in increased management costs. 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. 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.
TECHNOLOGY
Court reporters self-fund hardware, software, networking, maintenance and upgrades, all of which would become court costs if they are replaced with a machine. 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.
QUALITY
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.
PRODUCTIVITY
In human physiology, we read a written transcript three-to-five times faster than we hear an audio recording. That means judges, lawyers and litigants are losing productivity when they are given a tape vs a transcript. And once again, if an ER monitor is not present, that means a tape is not annotated to show what happened where, necessitating the review of an entire three hour hearing instead of queuing to the general vicinity where something occurred in the recording.
MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?
So does this mean I am a court reporter advocate with no appreciation for ER? No. 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.
ER is used in courts in 46 of the 50 United States and all but a handful use a combination of court reporters and ER. A blended solution is the best and most practical choice, and a good place to research these issues is the National Association for Court Management mini-guide on Making the Court Record.
In closing, there may be a game changer on the horizon that would flip this debate on its head … a significant problem in managing courts is the need to capture what occurs in courtrooms and get that information into the court’s automated case management system as quickly and accurately as possible. The result is that courtroom clerks have become key punch operators furiously typing minutes among their other duties. 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.
This technology is called Reporter Electronic Data Interchange, or REDI, and it’s high time we start using it. If use of REDI becomes widespread, the added value for court reporting costs would be impressive.
I know several court reporting vendors with the wherewithal to offer REDI. Any courts interested in taking it out for a spin?
Chris Crawford www.justiceserved.com
Photo credit = Avicore Reporting
Entries (RSS)
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. Simply because a group of steno reporters got together and created an association called AAERT no more makes them experts as any one of us who have toiled in this profession for many years. 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.
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.
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