Committee’s Report Unfair To Court Reporters
Connecticut Law Tribune
Monday, April 04, 2011
Copyright 2011, ALM Properties, Inc.

Printed for

Committee’s Conclusions Unfair To Court Reporters

By LES SELIGSON

As the current president of the Connecticut Court Reporters Association (CCRA), I feel compelled to respond on behalf of CCRA to a recent Connecticut Law Tribune article headlined “Report Says Court Transcripts Should Go Digital” (Jan. 31, 2011).

The article is based on a 76-page report published by the Connecticut Committee on Court Recording Monitors and Court Reporters. Unfortunately, the report is one-sided and contains inconsistencies and omissions that CCRA feels compelled to correct on behalf of court reporters in the State of Connecticut and nationwide.

CCRA must first take issue with how the committee was organized. We were never formally informed about the committee’s existence, and, thus, the committee did not give the public and all affected parties the opportunity to comment on its work. We have seen significant efforts from the national, state and local governments to increase transparency over the past few years.

Additionally, the report cites a $6.45 per page cost for obtaining a transcript of a court proceeding. The figure should be $6.35 per page, set by statute, and is reserved for the extreme example of providing any party with an overnight transcript. As with professionals in most occupations, the urgency and immediacy of the need drive the cost of the service. The “regular” or standard per page rate is $3 for an original and $1.75 per copy in a civil case. It should be noted that when a private party orders a civil transcript, overnight or otherwise, a “courtesy” copy is provided to the presiding judge at no cost; in a criminal proceeding, both the presiding judge and the prosecuting attorney are entitled to courtesy copies.

The statutory per page rate set for state and municipal agencies for overnight transcripts is $4.45. The “regular” or standard rate is $2 for an original and 75 cents for a copy, a noticeable difference from the private rates. As in the preceding scenario, when the prosecuting attorney requests a transcript, overnight or otherwise, the judge receives a courtesy copy. When a public defender orders a transcript, a courtesy copy is provided to the judge and the state’s attorney handling the case.

The majority of criminal appeals are handled by the Office of the Chief Public Defender (OCPD). Paper transcripts are provided to the OCPD and the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney, and the cost of the transcript is shared by these offices. The OCPD and the Appellate Court receive an electronic copy of the transcript at no cost as well.

CCRA objects to the phrase “snippet of testimony.” This misleading statement implies that court reporters are heavily overpaid by attorneys who only want to review a tiny portion of the proceedings. In fact, the New Oxford American Dictionary defines snippet as “a small piece, or brief extract.” Even taking the highest page rate given for state employed court reporters of $6.35, a transcript would need to be over 150 pages for the court reporter to receive $1,000 and the highest rate would apply to those court reporters working on an overnight request after a full day’s work in court.

Furthermore, when considering that state court reporters are not eligible for overtime pay because of the Court Reporters Fair Labor Amendments Law of 1995, and, thus, that transcript income is in lieu of overtime and raises in salary, the cost of transcripts is further legitimized. The system for paying a court reporter is very different from the way most people in the United States are paid. Court reporters are compensated for transcripts only when they are ordered. Court reporters could work several cases without having one page ordered.

Audio Recording Questions

CCRA disagrees with how audio recordings of court proceedings may be outsourced. We are not only concerned with the accuracy of the official record, but also the privacy and ethical issues that arise when sensitive court information and data is sent to unlicensed, untrained, and unaccountable individuals to produce accurate transcripts and safeguard personal information.

The report also states that court reporting can be “quite a lucrative endeavor” for court reporters and court monitors. There are currently 200 court monitors and 35 stenographic court reporters in Connecticut, with 14 of those serving at a management level.

For comparison purposes, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the state of Connecticut’s mean household income as $68,294. The high end of the salary scale for Connecticut’s court reporters is $74,069, and the low end is $59,391. Court reporters must work in Superior Court for a minimum of nine years before they can even reach the maximum salary level.

Furthermore, it is unclear why the report even referred to the court reporter page rates since the court monitors are paid the exact same as the court reporters per page. The report condemned how 21 state employees were compensated, but ignored the fact that more than 200 additional employees were paid exactly the same, according to the report.

In the meantime, such discussion of lucrative salaries and transcripts presupposes that digital audio recording and electronic recording transcripts are cheaper than court reporters. That is misleading. Indeed, digital audio and electronic recording transcripts have been proven to cost more money than stenographic court reporters in lengthier, more intense cases when transcripts are needed.

The gold standard is real-time court reporting, as indicated in the report. This is what the goal should be for the state. The real-time reporter can integrate a standard courtroom in a matter of minutes. The last court reporter certification exam was given on April 24, 2010, but no permanent court reporters have been hired by the state in some years.

Another concern in the report was no audio is provided by a court reporter and that the reporter’s work is proprietary. That certainly can be corrected. Reporters have an audio component built in their software. Digital audio is nothing more than a sophisticated tape recording. We all know how good computers are until they act up or crash. In fact, some states have rehired stenographic court reporters.

CCRA urges the Committee on Court Recording Monitors and Court Reporters to seek input from court reporters in the system, to revisit the evidence, and to reconsider its conclusions. A digital court is not necessarily cheaper than utilizing stenographic court reporters, and it certainly is not more dependable, according to the National Court Reporters Association. The judicial system must push for the most accurate court record possible, and a stenographic court reporter is the best choice available when court administrators are making the decision on how to make the record in the 21st century. •

Les Seligson is a free-lance court reporter from Orange and president of the Connecticut Court Reporters Association. For more information about that group, please visit www.ctreporters.org.