Talk:Court reporter

court reporter I know next to nreporting, but was curious: due to the advent of modern voice recording technology (voice recorders, for example), are court reporters less in demand than they were before? There must be a reason why this industry is still so high-paying. If anyone can answer this question, I'd request that they include a section in the article. KBurchfiel (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

>>"High-paying" is subjective. There is feast and famine, and there is a greater risk of return. Most reporters carry uncollectable debts on the books. Also, reporters still have to pay subcontractors despite not getting paid. Aside from that, the human brain is still the most sophisticated computer. Because people have horrible speech patterns -- do not speak clearly, speak on top of each other, have differing accents, differing dialects, incorporate slang, etcetera -- there is no computer that can interpret the spoken word as accurately as the human brain. Advocates of computerized methods of interpreting speech can only boast an 80 percent accuracy rate, which is unacceptable in the legal arena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.25.216 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Court reporters often command earnings which rival those of the attorneys whose speech they transcribe.

What is this supposed to mean? (Ok, I am not native English speaker, but still...) saigon_from_europe

Basically, it just says that court reporters can earn as much or more than attorneys when they are working steadily. The pay rate is divided between 'appearance fees' which are payments for simply showing up and taking a deposition, and 'page rates' which means that a court reporter can charge a certain amount per page when an attorney orders a transcript. This 'page rate' can vary depending on where a transcript was taken. -Heidi from Idaho

In which case, let's just say "can" - certainly outside the US it is rare for court reporters to earn anything near what lawyers earn. ~~LP

I have been a freelance court reporter for several years in New York City, and I have consistently earned more than most of the attorneys that hire me for depositions. Talk about envy! I wish I had the education of an attorney, and they wish they made my salary. There's something to be said about someone who goes to law school for four-plus years, graduates almost $100K in debt, then goes to work for a firm that starts them out at around $50K. That is after working almost 70 hours a week, and not being able to try any cases. Just depositions and Conferences, motions, and the like. I, on the other hand, went to a specialized school for stenography for two and a half years for about $20K, and now I command up to $125K per year, working an average of 30 hours a week.

>>This is not a correct statement above. A few court reporters can earn up to $250,000 a year, but these reporters have very specialized skills that take decades to develop; however -- and where the above statement is preposterous -- it is impossible to earn a decent living as a court reporter at only 30 hours a week, certainly no 125k figure. This poster is most certainly referring to 30 hours of on-the-record time, which does not take into account the three to four times that amount of time that is actually required to produce the transcript. In other words, if a deposition lasts one hour, it takes four to five hours beyond that time to actually produce the transcript, taking into account printing and delivery. Also, if a reporter is taking 30 hours of actual testimony, there are not enough hours in the week for one person to go take the job and then produce that amount of testimony; therefore, scopists need to be hired. A decent scopist can earn up to 50k a year. In light of the scopist expense, a proofreader expense, as well as educational, travel expenses, equipment expenses, and double the taxes that attorneys have to pay, it is easy for anyone to see that attorneys do make out far better. Just a note, a court reporter would be trained to not capitalize the word "conference."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.25.216 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

<<<Looks like you got him (or her) there "unsigned." By capitalizing "Conference," it proves the author is either dishonest or exaggerating. No court reporter would ever make such an insignificant typo.

On the other hand, what do *you* know? How do you know how many years this reporter has been working and how much he or she is making per page? And by stating that one must "take into account printing and delivery," shows you pretty much know nothing at all. The reporter doesn't print or deliver anything. The agency takes care of that end. You just email it to them and they do their part. Plus, if you're a clean reporter, you won't need "four to five" hours for every on-site hour of writing. Good reporters can scope their own work in an hour to hour ratio, easy. Proofreaders can be hired to do the rest and they don't cost as much as scopists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.132.103 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to the BLS about pay.

Can anyone clarify what happens to the transcripts? I understand that the reporter generally notarizes their validity, may keep back-up records, etc. Are transcripts for depositions or transcripts entered into court records now public? Under license?

I deleted the sentence on court reporters receiving personal gratification for doing closed captioning work, because that is purely speculative (they do get paid).

____________ I'm currently in school to become a court reporter in New York City. It states in the article "Nine to Eleven Years" to become a court reporter. I think the writer may have meant nine to eleven months to learn the basic skills...

The salary write of "about 30,000 a year" is also quite a low estimate. (though it does say 30 to 60,000, which is closer to what I've heard. ) I don't know much about court reporting in other countries and can't comment there, but I think this page needs to be done justice. If I get some time I'll see if I can gather actual facts. __________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.126.147 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

court reporter I know nothing about court reporting, but was curious: due to the advent of modern voice recording technology (voice recorders, for example), are court reporters less in demand than they were before? There must be a reason why this industry is still so high-paying. If anyone can answer this question, I'd request that they include a section in the article. KBurchfiel (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

>>"High-paying" is subjective. There is feast and famine, and there is a greater risk of return. Most reporters carry uncollectable debts on the books. Also, reporters still have to pay subcontractors despite not getting paid. Aside from that, the human brain is still the most sophisticated computer. Because people have horrible speech patterns -- do not speak clearly, speak on top of each other, have differing accents, differing dialects, incorporate slang, etcetera -- there is no computer that can interpret the spoken word as accurately as the human brain. Advocates of computerized methods of interpreting speech can only boast an 80 percent accuracy rate, which is unacceptable in the legal arena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.25.216 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Court reporters often command earnings which rival those of the attorneys whose speech they transcribe.

What is this supposed to mean? (Ok, I am not native English speaker, but still...) saigon_from_europe

Basically, it just says that court reporters can earn as much or more than attorneys when they are working steadily. The pay rate is divided between 'appearance fees' which are payments for simply showing up and taking a deposition, and 'page rates' which means that a court reporter can charge a certain amount per page when an attorney orders a transcript. This 'page rate' can vary depending on where a transcript was taken. -Heidi from Idaho

In which case, let's just say "can" - certainly outside the US it is rare for court reporters to earn anything near what lawyers earn. ~~LP

I have been a freelance court reporter for several years in New York City, and I have consistently earned more than most of the attorneys that hire me for depositions. Talk about envy! I wish I had the education of an attorney, and they wish they made my salary. There's something to be said about someone who goes to law school for four-plus years, graduates almost $100K in debt, then goes to work for a firm that starts them out at around $50K. That is after working almost 70 hours a week, and not being able to try any cases. Just depositions and Conferences, motions, and the like. I, on the other hand, went to a specialized school for stenography for two and a half years for about $20K, and now I command up to $125K per year, working an average of 30 hours a week.

>>This is not a correct statement above. A few court reporters can earn up to $250,000 a year, but these reporters have very specialized skills that take decades to develop; however -- and where the above statement is preposterous -- it is impossible to earn a decent living as a court reporter at only 30 hours a week, certainly no 125k figure. This poster is most certainly referring to 30 hours of on-the-record time, which does not take into account the three to four times that amount of time that is actually required to produce the transcript. In other words, if a deposition lasts one hour, it takes four to five hours beyond that time to actually produce the transcript, taking into account printing and delivery. Also, if a reporter is taking 30 hours of actual testimony, there are not enough hours in the week for one person to go take the job and then produce that amount of testimony; therefore, scopists need to be hired. A decent scopist can earn up to 50k a year. In light of the scopist expense, a proofreader expense, as well as educational, travel expenses, equipment expenses, and double the taxes that attorneys have to pay, it is easy for anyone to see that attorneys do make out far better. Just a note, a court reporter would be trained to not capitalize the word "conference."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.25.216 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

<<<Looks like you got him (or her) there "unsigned." By capitalizing "Conference," it proves the author is either dishonest or exaggerating. No court reporter would ever make such an insignificant typo.

On the other hand, what do *you* know? How do you know how many years this reporter has been working and how much he or she is making per page? And by stating that one must "take into account printing and delivery," shows you pretty much know nothing at all. The reporter doesn't print or deliver anything. The agency takes care of that end. You just email it to them and they do their part. Plus, if you're a clean reporter, you won't need "four to five" hours for every on-site hour of writing. Good reporters can scope their own work in an hour to hour ratio, easy. Proofreaders can be hired to do the rest and they don't cost as much as scopists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.132.103 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to the BLS about pay.

Can anyone clarify what happens to the transcripts? I understand that the reporter generally notarizes their validity, may keep back-up records, etc. Are transcripts for depositions or transcripts entered into court records now public? Under license?

I deleted the sentence on court reporters receiving personal gratification for doing closed captioning work, because that is purely speculative (they do get paid).

____________ I'm currently in school to become a court reporter in New York City. It states in the article "Nine to Eleven Years" to become a court reporter. I think the writer may have meant nine to eleven months to learn the basic skills...

The salary write of "about 30,000 a year" is also quite a low estimate. (though it does say 30 to 60,000, which is closer to what I've heard. ) I don't know much about court reporting in other countries and can't comment there, but I think this page needs to be done justice. If I get some time I'll see if I can gather actual facts. __________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.126.147 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Still hugely US-centric

18 months on from the comments above, not a lot seems to have improved. This article is still effectively "Court reporting in the United States". I wish I knew anything much at all about this topic, as if I did I'd make it a priority; it's that much in need of globalisation. If anyone is reading this who knows about practice in other countries, please edit; it would be wonderfully appreciated! Loganberry (Talk) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Experience as a Certified Court Reporter in the United States

I am now retired, but I worked 23 years as a court reporter in the United States and on the Island of Guam. My method of recording testimony was the Stenotype machine. I went to court reporting school for two years, with an additional three months for speed building, (drill work). The first nine months is devoted learning Theory, or machine shorthand, and the Stenotype Keyboard. One spends a lot of time learning the shorthand symbols, alphabetical shortcuts for phrases and words so as to enable one to write phonetically at verbatim speeds. During the training, a student is also taught Legal Terminology, Medical Terminology, English, Spelling, Typing, Court Protocol, and other subjects.

Of course, one of the motivations for this intense preparation is the earning capacity of a Certified Court Reporter. It can be lucrative. However, the salary base depends on the circumstances of one's engagement. If, for example, the reporter works freelance, then that reporter might affiliate with a reporting firm, or independently work on call for law firms or courts to take legal depositions or testimony to be utilized in a court case or other official hearings. An Official Reporter is one who is hired by a Court system must be available to take cases as they are scheduled, prepare transcripts for appeal purposes, prepare Court Orders for presiding judges and prepare certified transcripts of official proceedings.

Generally speaking, there might be more security if a reporter works for a court system with health and retirement benefits available to them. A freelance reporter, depending on the location and nature of one's client base, can earn as much or more but would have to be responsible for one's 401 K, health and other retirement considerations. A free lance reporter can affiliate with a free lance firm and may become a partner. The popularity of shorthand machine operators has diminished in favor of budget cuts and the use of recording equipment or voice mask reporters in recent years.

The large salaries are sometimes hyped by schools in luring students into their classes. However, it would not be unusual for a court reporter to earn $70,000-#100,000 if employed on a regular basis, producing accurate high quality transcript in a timely manner. It is hard, interesting work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltenney (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 March 2009

This is not directed to the position in other countries since my experience has been limited to the good ole USA! This may or may not be helpful but it is "my take" on the career of court reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltenny (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 March 2009

The above is interesting and potentially useful, although it won't do anything to redress the enormous US bias in the article. However, it is basically a self-published essay, and as such is not a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. What it might do is help others to look for these facts in places which do conform to WP:V and WP:RS, and from that point of view it's handy. Loganberry (Talk) 00:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(Note that I originally made the above comment between the two comments of Deltenny's above, and it should be read in that context.) Loganberry (Talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Court Reporting in Western Australia

Court Reporting in Western Australia

When I joined the Commonwealth Reporting Service (CRS, latterly Auscript) in June 1990, the job was fairly poorly paid, as a casual employee. Payment was based upon the numbers of hours spent transcribing, not the length of the recording.

All of the work was done from audio recordings (at that time, cassette tapes), with either 4 or 2 channels. Obviously 4 channel was favoured because it was possible to isolate a particular microphone, very helpful when everybody was talking at once.

The contractual obligation of accuracy was no more than 2 errors per page (I took that as 355 words, although it was never clearly defined.)

All work was typed from these tapes onto a computer, and theoretically was supposed to be checked and edited, but in practice this was sometimes a fairly sketchy affair, due to the enormous pressure of quick turnaround. At this time everything was typed "manually". (For a "daily" transcript, when the finished product had to be back in court one hour after the words were spoken, this required a team of 4 reporters to work simultaneously on the same case.)

The computers were '286 and the software was HPWord. It had almost no features worth using. Then the '386 was introduced as was WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. After some settling in, a method was devised for creating "shorthand", using WP's pretty powerful macro function. It ultimately became possible to type in an abbreviation and by hitting the appropriate key (chosen by the operator) have expansion occur immediately. This meant that each reporter could choose their own abbreviations without having to take into account whether somebody else would have to "translate" it at a later date.

In 1993 I was introduced to speech recognition, in the form of Dragon for DOS. It wasn't particularly good, but I thought it had possibilities.

In about 1996 I moved to another contractor where they also used WP5.1 for DOS, so the keyboard shorthand travelled with me. I added "short forms" continually so I was constantly improving my speed (and accuracy) by reducing the number of keystrokes I was having to key in.

Although my employer continued to use WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, I (initially reluctantly) changed over to a Windows operating system and started to use WordPerfect for Windows, but saving my work as WP5.1 for merging with the central system. I was able to replicate the "keyboard shorthand" feature, but using QuickCorrect rather than macros. Whilst MS Word had a similar function called AutoCorrect, I was not able to use this successfully, due to the fact that I was not able to remove the expansion function from the existing keys (ie space bar, full stop, enter etc) whereas with WordPerfect, I found it fairly simple to attach the expansion function to any desired keystroke. Further, since I was using a Maltron

http://www.maltron.com/

keyboard rather than a QWERTY keyboard, I was able to execute the function using my thumb, without moving my fingers from the home keys.

One other annoyance with the MS Word program was the limited file size for AutoCorrect entries. At maximum it was limited to about 64KB, before "out of memory" errors began occurring.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q180165

There is (so far at least) no limit on file size or number of entries with WordPerfect for Windows. Currently the file size is about 260 KB and the number of entries exceeds 6000.

Using this function I've been able to achieve better than 210 words per minute (from written text) with an accuracy of about 98% (before checking). Since about 2004 I have given all my work a "100% sound check" ie I rewind the recording and play it again (usually at high speed) to check against the written transcript. In only one instance (since 1996) has an independent check by a client discovered errors greater than the required 2 per page, and after an examination of the "errors" it was found that in fact there were fewer errors than 2 per page, due to a misunderstanding by the client.

I kept using and upgrading Dragon speech recognition and have found it possible to combine the shorthand with the speech recognition, literally on a second-by-second basis. One of the advantages of using audio recordings is that I am able, depending on the quality of the recording and the speech, to transcribe in better than real time, at least over short bursts, because I can increase the playback speed.

(off topic, promotional info removed per WP:TALK --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Proword (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Do you have reliable sources that could be used to support adding some of it to the article? --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to oblige, except that since this is about my own personal experience(s) I'm not sure what a "reliable source" would be. The only thing which is not completely standard software or hardware available to the general public is the way in which I use it, and the link (which was removed) gave a detailed description of how to achieve the minimal software modification needed. I have placed no restrictions on third parties using this method, nor have I sought any financial recompense from third parties.

If you could suggest which area of the article you think needs to have a reliable source, I'd be quite happy to attempt to supply it.

Proword (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about Statements under Oath and Grand Jury requests

This is about using the services of a court reporter for the purposes of: 1.) putting "on record" a person's sworn statement as to how certain evidence was obtained and passed on. It is also about 2.) requesting a judge, prosecuting attorney or other proper official to empanel a Grand Jury, specifically, a Grand Jury to investigate the events of 9/11, as indicated by the webpage

http://www.voicesofsafety.com/pogonews/911/yearoftruth/citizens/ ,

which you are invited to visit. The form on this webpage gives the general idea of the project, but it is not necessarily framed in the exact wording which I and others will use. It is also about 3.) presenting evidence of misprision of treason to the proper persons across the United States, in accordance with United States Code 18 "Crimes and Criminal Procedure". 18 USC Par. 2382, Misprision of Treason, as reproduced on the webpage above.

We are aware that many officials will be reluctant to admit that they have received such information, statements and requests for a Grand Jury, and we want to ensure that we are not ignored or forgotten, and that a permanent public record is kept. Any information pertaining to the permanency and publicity in a particular venue of such statements and requests will be appreciated. We have also heard that a Statement under Oath is legally admissible evidence in a court of law anywhere in the world. Can someone say to what degree this is true?

This inquiry is of a general nature, in that Missouri is not the only state in the U.S. in which this process will be taking place. Also we anticipate similar requests for official investigations in other countries around the world, where Grand Juries may have different names. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Politicstahl (talk)Donald Stahl politicstahl@hotmail.com —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

"Realtime certifiable"

In the section on Skills and Training, second line, what does "realtime certifiable" mean? I haven't suggested an alternative because the original is so unclear. Firstly, I have no idea what the adverb "realtime" implies in the context of this article. Also, if the author is from North America, please note that "certifiable" in British English means that a person could be certified as insane. OldSpot61 (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question Regarding This Sentence

So I'm reading through this article and this just happened to stand out, the following is copied directly from the article: "Court stenographers must be between 4'11' and 5'2" in order to get a job." Is this an actual fact? I did not see any sort of citation for this and I'm curious as to why this is the case if this is indeed the truth. I looked around on the internet but was unable to find anything to corroborate the quoted statement. Anyone who knows anything about this, please add it here in the talk page. Thanks.

Drunknesmonsta (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

height?

is this article trying to suggest that you *must* be between a certain (quite short) height to be a court reporter? that's how it reads.

p.s. that guy above me is from reddit.

Reverted that as vandalism.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest this article to be renamed "Court Reporters in the United States" or something like that. This article has always been ONLY about USA and nothing has been done about it. One of the reasons possible being there are so many countries that do not have court reporters at all. The whole process is very different than is USA and based mostly on documents, not on things said in court room. 86.60.200.45 (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should stand as is. As you'll see I've written a bit about my experience in Australia, but my query as to what needs "reliable sources" has gone unanswered to date. Whilst court reporting is not a very glamorous job (save to us who do it) it's still a necessary one, in those countries which have vaguely similar judicial systems, and restricting the title to just the USA would be misleading, and possibly discourage contributions from non-US sources.

Proword (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)