Don't blame the court reporters

Attorney Karl A. Gerber's opinion piece titled "Why California court reporters are pricing themselves out of court," Daily Journal, Nov. 13, which blames court reporters for a sweeping laundry list of inadequacies is unsupported by history and fact.

In response to the assertion of not covering court proceedings and high fees

During 2010-2011, the Superior Court of the State of California sustained major staffing cuts. The first to be let go were official civil court reporters, those employed by the court. I was president of the California Court Reporters Association at the time. I flew down to Los Angeles and attempted to console the state's largest pool of official reporters whose jobs were gone.

These are people like us all. They had families to support, mortgages, rent, and medical bills to pay.

The obvious short- and long-term result of that was a lack of coverage in the courts. It threw reporters, the courts, and the Bar into a scramble. I recall being in San Francisco Superior Court at the time. Attorneys needed immediate help. I was there. I filled in where I could. I was with a small agency at that time. We all filled in where we could.

The laid-off reporters adapted to new circumstances and either reached out to private firms and got freelance work or jump-started reporting agencies that diversified to cover courts. It took grit, investment, time, education, and money. Reporters from the freelance world adapted to the freelance court world by learning the rules of court and the rules of appellate transcripts. Conversely, laid-off officials learned the freelance world of depositions, exhibits and civil procedure governing depositions. The reality of no steady income meant no benefits; and, hence, higher fees.

Make no mistake about it; the courts did this.

In response to technical glitches and exhibits missing

In my 40 years of reporting, technical issues have plagued every participant - from the Court to attorneys to witnesses. While it is true that all of us at one time or another encounter technical glitches, to blame the reporter for all the technical crises causing interruptions in reporting, such as laptops that crash and/or lost internet connections is grossly and patently unfair, untrue and unfounded. It wholly misappropriates the onus squarely and solely on the reporter. Many witnesses and attorneys have delayed proceedings.

Exhibits can be both the fault of the reporter or the attorney. In the thousands of depositions I've taken, many have required me to hound attorneys for exhibits. Some depositions go out without them and are attached post-production. In the over 20 trials I've reported after the layoffs, errors are not solely within the province of the reporter. Many errors have been caused by us all.

In response to the lack of court reporting offices and the advent of online proceedings

Covid-19 changed the world for each of us, not just for reporters. Law firms in the San Francisco Bay Area are empty when I'm there to report a deposition. Lawyers and staff work online while a skeleton staff remains. Court reporting offices have slimmed down because remote depositions have become the norm. Cookies, coffee, donuts, and "fishnet" stockings no longer adorn the reporting offices or law firms. For good reason. Sharing food and space mean sharing germs we've all grown accustomed to not sharing. And "fishnet" stockings, well, I...

Technological advances

With the advent of online depositions and court proceedings, reporters invested in new equipment and adapted. The accusation that the "giants" of the reporting industry are all "bad" ignores this fact:  The "giants" kept the wheels of justice running during Covid. How? They invested in people, IT, and algorithms necessary to produce sophisticated Zoom technology and a program named Exhibit Share. Programs like this allow the Court and lawyers to mark and enter exhibits into evidence. I refer to the article I authored about a four-month remote jury trial titled "What a 100% remote trial is really like: A court reporter's view,"  Daily Journal, Oct. 1, 2021.  

In fact, to this day, in certain trials, court staff can use programs like Exhibit Share from this "giant" firm. It saves the courts money.

And there's more: Technological advances have helped reporters produce more work more efficiently and in less time. "Real Time" may be the single most helpful online tool ever created by court reporting software companies. During my trials, participants from New York to California can be connected 100% of the time through a link that I send them.

Lawyers regularly attend court via Zoom in a hybrid Zoom arrangement. Good, bad or indifferent, witnesses regularly testify live via Zoom. Jury voir dire is still sometimes conducted via Zoom. This saves time and money and protects lives. And thanks to new laws like AB 3013, which will finally allow remote reporting to be tested meaningfully in counties across the state, the world of a remote court may be on the precipice of something profound.

In conclusion

Adaptability has been a key element of the reporting profession and the Bar. You can see it in depositions, trials, and arbitrations. While these interconnected professions have had to deal with budget cuts and vacant offices, it has created new opportunities for witnesses testifying online, and agencies being able to remotely cover in-person depositions and courts. This may not last forever, because technologies change, as do courts, lawyers and their practices, and reporters and theirs.

Instead of blaming court reporters, look to the historic circumstances and branch of government that created this, and let us all be adaptable.

Early Langley, CSR, RMR, B.A., is past president of the California Court Reporters Association, current co-chair of the Legislative Committee; past chair, National Court Reporters Foundation and current Trustee.