Advocating for digital reporting or other non-stenographic reporting methods could cost you a fellows title, according to a proposed amendment from the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA). Critics say the amendment will intimidate court reporters from leveraging new technology, but the NCRA argues it's trying to limit bad-mouthing from high-ranking members.

In April the NCRA board of directors proposed amendments to its constitution and bylaws that would require potential candidates for fellowship "at all time[s]" to support the purpose of the NCRA, "including to promote verbatim stenographic reporting technologies over alternative reporting methods." Similarly, a fellow can be removed of their designation if they are promoting alternatives to verbatim stenographic reporting tech.

The recent proposals arrive as a nationwide shortage of court reporters is deepening. Jim Cudahy, former executive director of the NCRA and current executive director of STTI, a nonprofit advocate for accurate and fair court reporting, argued that leveraging technology will become crucial to ensuring all proceedings have needed transcribers.

"Because the market of stenographers has reduced so significantly and will continue to do so, they have no choice to change their model and we will see more of [using non-stenographic court reporting methods] . The NCRA [says] in its bylaws there's an obligation to promote stenography, but that does not mean spreading misinformation about the capabilities of other technologies," Cudahy said.

Indeed, the NCRA hasn't minced words describing electronic court reporting and transcribing, which are proceedings that are recorded and later transcribed by a court reporter. It's called such processes "risky" and circulated a flyer alleging inadequacies of such methods.

The NCRA's proposed amendments haven't been adopted, with the annual meeting to vote on the measures shifted to 2021 to avoid large gatherings during the coronavirus outbreak. Still, Cudahy believes the damage has already been done.

" They've already sowed division and created a firestorm within their association based on people's perception that stenography alone is the only acceptable matter to protect the record," he said.

However, NCRA president Roy "Max" Curry argued the proposals have sparked discussions and ideas about possible modifications.

Curry noted a few members were "extremely upset" when they read the proposed amendments. Their discontent was based on misunderstanding the intent of the amendments, he said.

"You can deal with other methodologies in your company," Curry explained. "We're not going to bring you up on charges. [However], if you have stenographic reporters advocating to [Capital] Hill against stenographers, you just can't have it both ways."

In response to some members' concerns, the NCRA issued a follow-up email explaining the proposed amendments' intent, according to a copy provided by the NCRA to Legaltech News.

"Certainly, members are free to do as they wish, including using alternative technologies when circumstances require," the NCRA wrote. "But if they no longer promote the stenographic method as superior to other methods—indeed, if they denigrate stenography and promote competing methods over stenography—then they are in violation of our governing documents and should no longer be entitled to hold the fellow designation."

Curry said the further clarification calmed most members' misgivings. However, he noted members also voiced a "valid" concern regarding implementing the new requirements.

"All the amendment states is that the board will decide the issue—if it's passed—if someone is violating the bylaw. It doesn't address a mechanism about how a complaint would come forth in a fair and balanced way," Curry said.

Curry believes the NCRA's bylaws and constitution task force and other committees should draft checks and balances that limits unfair withholding or removal of a fellow's title if they promote alternative methods. He said those modifications would make an amendment "likely to pass," and he would encourage the board to drop its current proposals in favor of the updated proposal.

Despite the debate, the NCRA's proposed amendments hasn't led to other court reporters taking a similar approach to membership qualifications.

However, the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT), which the NCRA has opposed its use of transcribing previously recorded proceedings, has redefined its classification of its "professional members" group, the AAERT said in a prepared statement.

The change extends full voting membership to those previously in the nonvoting vendor group of members, according to AAERT. This effort, AAERT wrote, creates a more inclusive organization that allows all supporters to join as fully invested members. AAERT president Janet Harris said the recent changes weren't related to NCRA, and were in the works months prior.