Dog Barks, Zoom Conferences: Court Reporters' New Normal Working Remotely
For now, all court reporters are working from home with lighter caseloads. But industry observers say recent regulatory updates and the popularity of video conferencing may accelerate court reporting in the long-term.
May 11, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
While COVID-19 has decreased court reporting opportunities and shifted all available work to remote access, it's provided some work benefits. And some say recent regulatory action and a tighter focus on remote capabilities may strengthen the industry in the long-term.
Various social distancing guidelines have caused many courtrooms to pause jury trials and jury selections and limit court proceedings. As such, court reporters' caseloads were significantly diminished, and all remaining work was conducted remotely via video conferencing platforms with transcribing software, observers said.
Registered professional reporter Matthew Moss said the Denver court system provided him and other court reporters with laptops connected to the court's network drive and other materials and tools needed to work from home.
"We do have judges holding hearings for motions and matters [even] if they can't convene a jury right now. The things they can do they're doing, [and] that's usually pretrial, motion to suppress evidences," and other matters, Moss said. He explained that such proceedings are held via video conference platform Webex.
But working remotely has provided some upsides. Judges and counsel are now more aware of speaking clearly, Moss said, which makes his transcribing a little easier. Still, court reporters may confront new background distractions "if someone is not muted and a sound comes in of a dog barking or dishes falling," he noted.
But most court reporters are backed up by judges who request someone to restate a comment to ensure the transcription is correct, Moss said.
"For us, the hearings moving to the video platform venue reminds people you just can't have three people talking at a time on Webex or Zoom. It's a terrible experience for everyone."
Though the courts have limited services, Moss said working remotely eases the likely backload that will welcome the court when it fully reopens: "We are handling that stuff as much as we can so it's not clogging up calendars when we're allowed to go back into the courtroom."
In addition to court proceedings, depositions also took a significant hit and impacted court reporters.
"I've talked to firms on the deposition side, and they've seen things come to a screeching halt. They are adjusting their models and making wider use of remote reportering, which is something that's existed before but is certainly proliferating now," noted Jim Cudahy, executive director of nonprofit digital legal record-keeping advocate Speech-to-Text Institute.
While COVID-19 stoked the sudden need for remote court reporting, American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers president Janet Harris said it wasn't a hard transition for digital court reporters to make.
"They are not tied to a steno machine or doing voice transcription. They have fewer pieces of equipment to operate and this is a very comfortable setting for court reporters," she said. "It's a common occurrence for digital reporters to report remotely."
In the midst of a pandemic or during normal circumstances, the tools leveraged when court reporting remotely are the same, Harris noted. Some court reporters leverage a court reporter agency's proprietary software or commercial platforms such as Zoom, Webex and GoToMeeting during depositions, she said.
Still, while the tech was already available to work remotely, recent regulations drove the sudden uptick in remote court reporting, said U.S. Legal Support president and chief strategy officer Peter Giammanco.
"There was a lot of executive orders around the country by various states that allowed remote swearing-in of the witness so they relaxed those rules so I don't have to be physically in front of you to swear you in but I can swear you in remotely," he said. "That really helped us to facilitate the use of remote platforms for depositions."
COVID-19 may also soften some objections to transcribing prerecorded matters, which some have previously deemed as "too risky."
When asked if opposition toward transcribing a recording was waning, Harris said, "I would say yes because there isn't always a need for instant real-time transcription." To be sure, Harris is pro-digital reporting and co-wrote a response letter to the National Court Reporters Association's complaints earlier this year.
For court reporter and NCRA member Moss, COVID-19 hasn't shored up his hesitancy toward digital reporting.
A distorted or muted microphone could send a statement "into the digital ether," he argued. "We are the only ones listening and noticing if something obscures an accurate record."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250