2026 Distinguished Service Award

At the Arizona Court Reporters Association’s 75th annual convention I was honored to be the 2026 recipient of the “Award For Distinguished Service To The Profession.”   I am extremely grateful to be part of this dynamic industry serving our legal community and the stellar men and women that I have met along the way.

ALL of my “algorithm” for enjoying servant leadership has come solely from 2 sources:   My Faith and Rotary.

I am thankful for Rotary and my fellow Rotarians and the journey that we’ve taken locally and internationally together these past 3 decades. Daily selflessness, diligence, structure, and camaraderie molds each of us to serve others and to never stop growing as mentors and leaders in our respective vocations.

So, the next time you ask yourself, or hear someone ask:  “What’s the plan for the future?”

The answer is:  “YOU. You’re the plan.”

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

The Legal Record Is Not a Decorative Byproduct of Litigation. It Is Evidence.

The official record, court reporter, transcript

In courtrooms across the country, the legal record is increasingly treated like a technical convenience rather than what it actually is: evidence. Audio files are captured, cloud platforms are deployed, automated systems are introduced, and transcription is framed as a downstream clerical task. In this framing, the “record” becomes a product to be processed later, not an evidentiary artifact created in real time. That shift may sound modern, efficient, and harmless. It is none of those things.

A legal record is not a decorative byproduct of litigation. It is evidence. And evidence is governed by rules.

Under the rules of evidence, a court record is not simply a collection of sounds later turned into words. It is a contemporaneous, authenticated, and certified account of what occurred in a legal proceeding. Its value lies not only in what it says, but in how it is created, by whom, under what legal authority, and under what professional obligations. Without those elements, a transcript is not merely weaker. It is something else entirely.

Evidence requires provenance. Provenance is not a buzzword borrowed from the art world. It is a foundational legal concept. It answers the questions courts care about most: Where did this come from? Who created it? By what method? Under what controls? With what opportunity for alteration, contamination, or loss? In litigation, provenance is the chain of custody of truth itself.

A certified court transcript is one of the few forms of evidence whose provenance is built into its creation. A licensed stenographic court reporter is not a passive observer. The reporter is a sworn officer of the court, operating under statute, regulation, and professional code. The reporter identifies the proceeding, administers oaths when authorized, captures the record verbatim in real time, safeguards the notes and audio, and certifies under penalty of perjury that the transcript is a true and correct record. That certification is not ceremonial. It is an evidentiary anchor.

Remove that framework, and the legal status of the product changes. An audio recording made by a device is not evidence in the same way a certified transcript is evidence. A document later produced by an unlicensed transcriber is not evidence in the same way a certified transcript is evidence. At best, such materials may become demonstrative aids, discovery materials, or informal references. At worst, they are unauthenticated hearsay artifacts whose admissibility depends on layers of later testimony to establish even basic reliability.

This distinction is not academic. It is the difference between a record that is presumptively admissible and one that must fight for legitimacy. Courts have long recognized that certified court transcripts are self-authenticating. They are trusted not because courts are sentimental about stenography, but because the process embeds accountability at the moment the record is created. The reporter is present. The reporter is identifiable. The reporter is trained. The reporter is licensed. The reporter is bound. The reporter certifies.

When proceedings are merely recorded and later “transcribed,” that evidentiary architecture collapses. Who controlled the recording? Who monitored its integrity? Who ensured all speakers were captured? Who intervened when multiple people spoke at once, when equipment failed, when a witness whispered, when an accent obscured meaning, when a juror cried, when a judge went off the record? Who made the contemporaneous judgment calls that the legal system depends on but rarely notices?

A recording device does none of that. An unlicensed transcriber, working days or weeks later, does none of that. They are not witnesses to the proceeding. They cannot certify what occurred. They can only represent what a piece of media seems to contain.

And media is not memory. Media is not context. Media is not custody. Media is not evidence.

Courts operate on a simple but profound principle: what happens in the room matters. Tone matters. Interruptions matter. The timing of objections matters. Whether a witness hesitated matters. Whether the judge ruled before or after an answer matters. These are not embellishments. They are the procedural skeleton on which appellate rights, due process, and judicial review are built.

Stenographic court reporters are trained precisely because of this reality. They are trained to capture not just words, but proceedings. To mark speakers, to resolve overlaps, to clarify spellings, to identify nonverbal events, to interrupt when the record becomes unclear, to request repetition, to preserve the intelligibility of the legal moment. Their function is not typing. It is record creation.

That is why licensing exists. Not to protect a job title, but to protect the evidentiary status of the record itself.

Licensing regimes impose minimum competencies, ethical obligations, continuing education, and disciplinary oversight. They create traceability. If a transcript is wrong, there is a responsible professional. If misconduct occurs, there is a governing body. If a dispute arises, there is a certifier who can testify. The transcript does not float free of human responsibility. It is tethered.

Unlicensed transcription severs that tether. The product may look similar. It may even be accurate much of the time. But legally, it is different in kind. It is the difference between a notarized affidavit and a typed statement. Between a sworn deposition and a meeting summary. Between evidence and information.

This distinction is becoming blurred, often deliberately, in the current rush toward technological substitution. Vendors speak of “capturing the record” through digital systems, then outsourcing transcription to remote workers, offshore services, or automated pipelines. The implication is that the record exists the moment sound is stored, and everything else is a cosmetic conversion. That implication is wrong.

The legal record is not born when audio is saved. It is born when a legally authorized professional creates it under legally recognized conditions.

Without that, courts are not replacing stenographers. They are downgrading evidence.

The long-term implications of this shift are not limited to accuracy debates. They strike at admissibility itself. When a transcript’s creation is decoupled from licensure and certification, its status must be rebuilt later through motions, declarations, and testimony. Each step introduces cost. Each step introduces vulnerability. Each step creates new grounds for challenge.

Who operated the recording system? Was it functioning properly? Was it complete? Was it altered? Who accessed it? Where was it stored? What software processed it? What logs exist? Who created the transcript? What training did they have? Were they impartial? Can they testify? Can they authenticate? Can they certify?

In certified stenographic practice, most of these questions never arise, because the system answers them in advance.

There is also a deeper risk, one that extends beyond individual cases. When courts normalize records that are not evidence at the moment of creation, they quietly shift the burden of integrity away from the justice system and onto future litigants. The courtroom stops being the place where the record is made, and becomes merely the place where raw material is generated. The legal meaning of what happened is deferred to vendors, platforms, and post-hoc processes.

That is not modernization. That is abdication.

The law has always treated its records differently from ordinary documents because liberty, property, reputation, and life turn on them. A legal transcript is not a convenience for lawyers. It is the historical memory of the state’s exercise of power over individuals. That memory must be trustworthy not only in fact, but in form.

Certification is not a rubber stamp. It is the legal act that transforms observation into evidence.

Provenance is not a technical detail. It is the reason courts can rely on words spoken months or years earlier.

Licensure is not protectionism. It is the mechanism by which the justice system embeds competence, accountability, and ethics into the creation of its own proof.

None of this precludes technology. Stenographic reporters already use advanced software, realtime systems, digital backups, and secure distribution platforms. The question is not whether tools evolve. The question is whether the evidentiary framework evolves with them, or is quietly discarded.

A system that records first and asks legal questions later is not an evidentiary system. It is a media system.

And media, however useful, is not evidence.

If courts wish to experiment with new methods of capture, they must do so within structures that preserve certification, provenance, and professional accountability. That may mean new licensing categories, new hybrid roles, new statutory definitions. But it cannot mean pretending that a recording plus an unlicensed transcription equals a legal record.

Because the legal record is not a decorative byproduct of litigation.

It is evidence.

And evidence is not created by accident.
 

Reprint from Stenoimperium, January 19, 2026

🔹 Disclaimer

This article is a public-interest commentary on court record creation, evidentiary standards, and professional frameworks. It is not legal advice. The views expressed are the author’s own and are offered to encourage discussion among legal professionals, policymakers, and the public about how official court records are created, certified, preserved, and relied upon within the justice system.
/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

2026: Your Genesis

I have consistently worked out in a gym 75 minutes a day, 6 days a week, for the past 45 years. First International Fitness, then Westside Barbell, then Gold’s, World Gym, LA Fitness, EOS, Mountainside, and a slew of others both locally and across the country. But consistently: 75 minutes, 6 days a week. And it all started with one “first step”, one visit by a hesitant young man who knew that he could make a change to be better.
`
Like many, the road sometimes got pretty rocky, having to start from the beginning after an injury or surgery, but always restarting with that one universal truth, the first step… and then another, and another.
`
The discipline and peace that fitness has brought me is exponential in every aspect of life, whether it’s raising strong, moral children of integrity, being mom’s caregiver for a decade, being a good husband, or being an ethical businessman and civic leader in Rotary, professional associations, and other charities. Its structure and commitment has influenced every single aspect of my life, each requiring a brave first step.
`
Each year the first week of January brings in hordes of New Year’s Resolution members to the gym. They crowd every corner of every gym, most without a solid plan or a sustainable, realistic goal… just the passion to improve themselves.   Sadly, by February 1st most people have already given up that passion, return to their old ways, and we never see 90% of them ever again.
`
Please, we encourage you :
This year, NOW,  be the 10%.
`
Whatever you need to wrestle with, whether it’s faith, fitness, debt, drinking, smoking, relationships, make this THE year that you have a solid plan, stay on course, ask others for guidance, and that you break free of mediocrity.   The first three words in the Bible are, ‘In the beginning…’   (Genesis 1:1)  Make this YOUR Beginning.
`
I promise you that most everyone else in that meeting, church service, gym, or at that dreaded healthcare appointment has been through what you’re feeling.  You are never alone.  There are armies of us there willing and happy to support you… wherever you’re at in your personal journey.
`
C.S. Lewis said it best:
‘You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.’
`
Lord, I thank you for this promise for the new year – that, in Jesus, you are with me. You have blessed me abundantly with compassion, unimaginable physical and emotional strength, and a heart to serve… (still working on that humility thing though) 😲
`
Guide each person reading this to surrender the old way and fully embrace that 2026 is their “Genesis.”
`
And Lord, help us, our families, friends, and peers to continue to focus our lives on you, to continue to love, mentor, and care for each other in the year ahead.
`
A Healthy and Happy New Year to All

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Losing a Legend

Very early in our careers in the legal industry we realize that not only do we all work together, but we also learn together, we grow together, we celebrate together,
and we mourn together.
Sadly, we lost an American legend and true trailblazer today.  A skilled and dedicated attorney, that in spite of facing discrimination rose above the fray to become the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
Her vote was pivotal in nearly two-thirds of the closest cases, during her tenure,
more than 350 in all.
On a personal note, she graciously always took time to speak with court staff, never perfunctory, but consistently upbeat, caring, and kind.  Think about that, even in highly charged and adversarial situations treating each and every person in the room with the same respect and dignity.
It was a tangible gift, and one I am blessed to have learned from.
“The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a
vibrant democracy.”
 Sandra Day O’Connor

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

National Court Reporters Association Position Statement on AI

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world rife with Deep Fakes, CGI, and AI.
How do we ensure the integrity of sworn testimony into the future?
The National Court Reporters Association has created a position statement on the dangers of using AI in legal proceedings.
/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Will AI ever replace court reporters?

state-of-the-art court reporters, real time, streaming, zoom, remote deposition, video conference
For anyone who asks the question:

Will court reporters be replaced by digital reporting or AI:

ChatGPT:

The potential for AI to replace court reporters is a topic of ongoing discussion and speculation. While AI technology has made significant advancements in recent years, there are several factors to consider when it comes to the role of court reporters:

1. Accuracy and Complexity: Court reporters play a crucial role in accurately transcribing court proceedings, capturing nuances, tone, and nonverbal cues. Achieving a high level of accuracy in transcribing complex legal proceedings, including multiple speakers, interruptions, and technical terminology, can still be challenging for AI systems.
2. Real-Time Reporting: Court reporters often provide real-time transcription during hearings or trials. This requires immediate and accurate reporting, which can be challenging for AI systems to achieve in real-time scenarios.
3. Legal and Ethical Considerations: The legal profession has strict standards and rules for court reporting. The use of AI systems for court reporting would require careful consideration of legal and ethical implications, ensuring transparency, accountability, and adherence to existing regulations.
4. Human Interaction and Judgment: Court reporters also handle other tasks beyond transcription, such as managing exhibits, marking important moments, and working closely with judges and attorneys. These aspects require human judgment, understanding of context, and interpersonal skills, which can be challenging for AI systems to replicate.
While AI technologies can assist court reporters by automating certain tasks, such as speech-to-text conversion or proofreading, it is unlikelythat AI will completely replace court reporters in the foreseeable future. The human element and expertise provided by court reporters are highly valued in legal proceedings, and their role extends beyond mere transcription.
For depositions in Arizona, Code requires use only of an
Arizona Certified Reporter and/or an Arizona Registered Firm.   
Please contact us with any inquiries, scheduling, and/or needs
that we can assist you with at:
[email protected], or call us at 480-481-0649
Herder & Associates, Registered Reporting Firm #R1220
Experienced, Trusted, Ethical
We look forward to making your deposition seamless
with cost-containment always in mind.
/0 Comments/by

Court Reporting and Technology: Throw Away Your 8-Track Tapes (Part Two)

court reporting and technology

At personal risk of being the target of attack, I respectfully address court reporting leadership’s campaign of sending out a woefully outdated 16-year-old Advisory Opinion on court reporters who video record Zoom depositions. I first wrote about this issue in Court Reporting and Technology.

First, let’s recall that this is a pre-Zoom, pre-pandemic, 2006 outdated opinion, and only an opinion. This was never a rule, never a regulation, nor a law.

If you will recall, this language was addressing a completely different animal in 2006 in live depositions, and it was drafted before the ease of Zoom and modern technology even existed.

This language specifically was addressing live in-person depositions and reporters who were frantically managing videography hardware during depositions. Reporters with tripods, wires, cables, lights, and cameras were showing up to depos. It was 2006 and the tech explosion was just starting to happen. (Twitter was only just about to be launched.)

Court Reporting and Technology

Fast forward to today, it is embarrassing that professionals would employ such obviously outdated language to slow progress. Throw away your 8-track tapes, so to speak, and let’s get upgraded to today’s standards of court reporting and technology.

We should all demand an updated position from NCRA and our state associations before they issue more ill-advised dusty opinions like this.

“Follow the money.”  This anti-reporter movement is partly motivated by companies that are losing millions of dollars each week overcharging for video-recording, even though today modern technology makes it safe, efficient, and Code-compliant.

Be aware that this is another brick in the wall to advance non-reporter proceedings, with a goal to eventually have only the digital reporter (tech/videographer) present. They are doing an excellent job of trying to muddy the water and diverting our attention as they are unopposed in this business plan:  Live stenographic reporter replacement.

Both court reporters and videographers are in short supply. Like in every industry, the crossover is inevitable, efficient, and cost-effective. We should be striving to keep the reporter in the proceeding in as many ways possible, even if an added video certification is deemed best practice.

Is NCRA going to tell the legal industry that reporter-recording a Zoom deposition is unethical and unsafe? Really? This is a bright, forward-thinking, and dynamic demographic that we serve, one that has had hundreds of thousands of proceedings successfully remote recorded by court reporters already.

We all have lived through and adapted through this pandemic. The legal industry has grasped onto advances in technology these last three years. Some went kicking and screaming, but we all adapted, including managing technology for court reporting. Are you going to tell them that we reporters are going to stick to our antiquated 2006 protocol? Really? This is professional suicide for the reporting industry. Please reconsider. More attorneys are asking for Code-compliant, reporter recording of Zoom depositions.

I appreciate that court reporters are intimidated by this massive marketing propaganda, especially when our state associations unwittingly walk in lockstep with a darker agenda. Most have not taken the time to read the RCP language or do their own due diligence, to deeply engage with clients and the marketplace, or to keep updated on this specific issue. Court reporters decline to record because it is new, and yes, there is a learning curve, and many of us just don’t like change. That is completely within their right to turn down this type of job. No argument there. No one is forcing them to accept this task and we appreciate them for the skills they do retain.

Zoom video recording is yet another valuable, advanced skill set, just like real time or captioning. There are court reporters who can write real time and there are others who cannot. They all deserve an opportunity. After all, we know court reporters are in demand across the country.

Thanks to rapidly advancing technology, Zoom video recording is not rocket science. All the hyperbole and criticism that recording a Zoom proceeding pursuant to statutory protocol is too much of a distraction for a reporter is just that, hyperbole…and it is totally subjective. What may be impossible for some reporters is second nature and enjoyable to others.

All protocols and code requirements can be learned and implemented by those that have a desire to expand their skills and be the ultimate professional. It has already been done and continues across the nation in hundreds of thousands of proceedings.

We simply cannot stick our heads in the sand and try to un-ring the bell of progress. 

This is especially true because it clearly opens the door to digitals aligning with videographers with virtually no objection to push the stenographic reporter out completely.

Do not tie our hands while handing them the key to the city.

Let us at least attempt to keep the playing field level.

The tighter our made-up restrictions are, the less competitive we will be… and the easier we will be to replace.

Court reporters need to become video certified for Zoom recording. Period.

 

For those that are simply not comfortable learning this skill set, with all the associated responsibilities, to disparage those that are comfortable and capable, is ill-advised, unkind, and non-productive to our industry. It’s akin to degrading someone who chooses to write real time, caption, or any other advanced skill. It’s like telling the industry it is too challenging for you so your opinion is wrong. It just doesn’t make sense.

This 2006 citing has been outdated for over a decade. Those in leadership that diligently crafted this opinion 16 years ago never could have predicted the amazing progress technology has made, never could have foretold of a global pandemic that would force the world to learn new advances overnight that have developed in the last decade.

It is time to stop living in the past and trying to scare, intimidate and disparage our fellow reporters. That gets us nowhere. If you are not building someone up, then you are tearing them down. Let us all strive to be better than that. We need to have this discussion with mutual respect and consider all the issues and complexities, form a committee with member collaboration to craft a modern advisory opinion that relates to today, here, now in 2022.

No one loves court reporting and court reporters more than I do. No one.

For 41 years I have loved going to work each day. The wonderful professionals and lifelong relationships continue to sustain me. We are all in this beautiful chaos together.

We need to demand of our National Court Reporters Association better leadership on this topic, and not just a regurgitation of their work in 2006.

As a court reporting community, we need to demand ethical, unbiased direction that protects our industry, not just large firms.  We respectfully ask for updated guidance that considers the differences that exist in technology, adaptability of our members, and the looming encroachment of non-reporter digital and video recording. Please at least put up a fight for us before there is nothing to fight for.

/0 Comments/by

Court Reporting and Technology: The Rise of Video Depositions (Part One)

Court Reporting and Technology

If the Covid-19 era has taught court reporters anything, it is that technology changes fast and we need to adapt quickly. Rather than traveling to in-person depositions, we were thrust into the world of video depositions. After all, lawsuits were still happening and courts were operating, even if in a lesser capacity. Lockdowns had us worried but we learned to change with the times with remote depositions in a pandemic world.

The challenge today is that the rules of court reporting and technology, specifically recording video depositions, are from 2006, years before a pandemic locked the world down. The world has changed, as has the technology and how we manage remote depositions. In this article, I write about the rise of technology, especially for court reporters. In later articles, I will be writing about how technology and the law haven’t caught up with each other and where that leaves us.

Angela Miller, the President of the Arizona Court Reporters Association (ACRA) said in the September 2021 issue of the ACRA Newsletter, “Our skill set cannot be replicated, and our dedication to our profession cannot be rivaled. We have proven to attorneys, judges, and court personnel that we are adaptive, we are flexible, and we can provide services on the fly with up-to-date technology and knowledge, and we can provide all of this not only in person but remotely.”

I agree wholeheartedly with her. At Herder and Associates, we’ve had to make quick adjustments, just like the rest of the world.

Court Reporting and Technology: A Brief History

In 2006, there was a rule put in place, that still stands today, which says court reporters are not allowed to record video depositions. That was fine at the time because most of our depositions were done on-site in conference rooms across the state of Arizona. People of all professions were primarily working in corporate offices, not at home, and the world had no idea what a pandemic would do to the way we work and where we work.

At that time, Twitter was being released. No one knew what to do with only 140 characters in a message. Today, the messages are up to 280 characters because of users requesting more space to write and Twitter giving us that. Apple released the new iMac with Intel Core Duo processor and introduced the MacBook Pro. Facebook was only two years old. Instagram was four years from existing in the public space and TikTok was probably not even an idea. In other words, technology has come a long way in 16 years.

In June 2013, Zoom was released for use, but it wasn’t until Spring 2020, the beginning of the pandemic lockdowns when it became widely popular. Attorneys and court reporters alike began using Zoom for video depositions as the rest of the world was meeting via the same platform. It makes sense that we started recording depositions, to the chagrin of some, because we needed to go back and listen, to make sure we were, and still are, accurately capturing what was said. Life was chaotic so we used technology to ease the stress.

Everyone from solopreneurs to corporate America was embracing life on Zoom. It makes sense that court reporters would use it too.

The problem is that the rules from 2006 said we couldn’t record depositions, even if they were via video. In today’s world, this may not make sense anymore. What’s even more embarrassing is that there are people who have an agenda to keep us in 2006 without considering that technology and the world have changed. In order for court reporters to do their jobs, we need to provide a more accurate deposition. For some, that means using technology to record depositions, but not everyone agrees this should be happening.

In later articles, I will be discussing why this antiquated way of thinking is ruining the already demand-heavy industry of court reporting.

/0 Comments/by
,

Are your deposition transcripts falling short of the promise of being true and accurate? Start by looking at the certificate page.

deposition transcripts
Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) isn’t new, but now your record is in peril with its use.  Additionally, ASR companies (digital reporters) are not bound to the state and federal guidelines, skills, and code that stenographic court reporters are.  The myriad of pitfalls with digital reporting includes not only accuracy, but also reliability, unauthorized disclosure/dissemination of testimony and exhibits, HIPAA violations, and breach of confidentiality agreements, to name a few.

Please protect your record and take a moment to read this detailed on-point article recently published in the National Court Reporters Association Journal from our good friend and Immediate Past President of the Kentucky Court Reporters Association, Lisa Migliore Black, CCR, RSA with her assessment. 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Protect YOUR Court Reporting Record!

court reporter

Have you recently shown up to a depo and realized the “court reporter” didn’t have a stenography machine?  You might have thought, “Wow, the court reporter doesn’t need one of those little machines anymore.”

The hard truth is you have just been part of a bait-and-switch scheme that may cost you your case.

Currently, there is a practice happening where unlicensed court reporting agencies, who claim they can’t find a licensed stenographic court reporter, are sending in a notary public to digitally record the deposition and have it transcribed later.

The Court Reporter Standard Certification Program (CR) provides statewide certification for persons in Arizona who are qualified to be certified.  Code Section 7-206 governs court reporter standard certification and applies to any person who records and transcribes a verbatim record in any sworn proceeding by means of written symbols or abbreviations in shorthand or machine writing in Arizona pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 32, Chapter 40.

Who is actually preparing the transcript if a Certified Shorthand Reporter didn’t show up? Protecting your court reporting record. 

These unlicensed agencies oftentimes send the digital recording to multiple transcribers who sometimes are located outside the United States.  The person showing up calling themselves a “court reporter” is not the one who transcribes the depo.  If your Arizona deposition transcript is not prepared by an Arizona Certified Shorthand Reporter, your deposition might not be admitted into evidence.

This deception is happening nationwide.  In a recent case in San Mateo County, In Re: McIntosh, Case Number SC023606A, Honorable Judge Scott upheld the Code of Civil Procedure and denied the admission of a digitally recorded deposition not prepared by a Certified Shorthand Reporter.

  “…[W]ith regard to the deposition of Mr. Dirickson, that it was taken pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure 2025.340 for audio and video recording but was not stenographically transcribed pursuant to CCP 2025.340(m). It was simply given to a — even though Mr.  Dirickson was sworn in by a licensed notary, Cindy Cobb is simply a transcriber, not a stenographic transcriber as required by law.     

Meaning, a certified shorthand reporter.  So, the deposition of Mr. Dirickson would be inadmissible for — inadmissible on those    grounds.”  

“…[I] understand, Your Honor.  But we ordered a court reporter, and that’s who came.  I don’t know the technical difference between a transcriber and a court reporter.”

Unfortunately, this attorney, who had ordered a court reporter, was not sent a court reporter.  This is where you need to be diligent, protect your court reporting record, and be aware of what is happening in the court reporting industry by these companies who are trying to make you think you are hiring a court reporter.  Do not rely on the court reporting agency to send what you have asked for.

To make sure this doesn’t happen to you:

  1. Make sure your notice states “before an Arizona Certified Shorthand Reporter” and not “and/or a digital recorder, and/or a person authorized to administer an oath.”
  2. When scheduling, make sure to specify you are ordering a Certified Shorthand Reporter.
  3. If you are not the noticing attorney, make sure you check that the notice says “before an Arizona Certified Shorthand Reporter” and not “and/or a digital recorder, and/or a person authorized to administer an oath.”
  4. Verify that the person calling themselves a court reporter is actually an Arizona Certified Shorthand Reporter.  Always ask for their license number.

Remember, you have a right to object to the deposition officer’s qualifications.

Lastly, Arizona Certified Shorthand Reporters (commonly called “court reporters”) are licensed by the State of Arizona and have a board that was established to protect the consumer, YOU.  The court reporters boards throughout the country claim they do not have jurisdiction over these companies, who are unauthorized to provide professional court reporting services according to current Arizona law.  If you have a problem with your transcript or deposition officer who is not an Arizona Certified Shorthand Reporter, you will have no recourse.

If you have been subjected to this practice, please consider filing a complaint with the Court Reporters Board of Arizona.

/0 Comments/by