Create Higher Status and Higher Responsibilities
As Reporters, we sometimes lament our position of working with professionals such as judges, lawyers, doctors and engineers, but not being considered professionals or officers of the court, except when being admonished that we have ethical duties and responsibilities to the judicial system, but all the while feeling that system doesn’t have any outward respect for or even consideration of us at times.
Part of this problem is that our educational training is usually not done in a standard, four-year college system that is both recognized and accredited by our would-be peers, yet our training often takes that long, plus an extended apprenticeship in the field to build up the experience necessary to be a competent reporter in the many phases required in learning how to protect the record and exercise proper judicial etiquette when reporting trials, depositions, hearings, conventions, and multiple-speaker conferences with sometimes highly-technical medical, engineering and construction jargon, just to name a few.
The burden of protecting the integrity of the record has been assailed in recent years by competition from the outside sources of electronic or digital recording and second-hand transcribing, some of it actually being performed by court reporters who have been replaced by machines and need the work.
It’s important as verbatim shorthand reporters that we’re aware of these new attacks on our time-honored profession and why we need to have current information from the many studies that have been done regarding how to best make, preserve, and protect the record in the most economically prudent way possible, studies both pro and con using shorthand reporters. We must be advocates for stenographic verbatim court reporting as the preferred method of making the record, and to do that we must be knowledgeable of opposing arguments and the perceptions of the people with whom we work who are not Washington Certified Court Reporters.
The fact that most people don’t understand how we do what we do is a double-edged sword. Because not just anyone can sit down and replace us gives us some feeling of job security, but when it comes time for someone to argue in our favor that’s knowledgeable about why we’re important, very few can stand up and speak. In fact, sometimes we find ourselves unable to defend ourselves and the profession of stenographic verbatim court reporting with sound arguments. We need to acquire that knowledge and be ready to defend the necessity of our remaining in the courtroom.
Two recent bills that passed in the 2010 Washington legislative session have both raised our stature in the judicial system and our responsibilities to it. House Bill 2861 or the “oath bill” passed with very little opposition in the 2010 legislative session. It allows Washington Certified Court Reporters to put witnesses under oath before giving testimony without requiring them to be Notaries Public. This may seem like something of little import, but it raises the stature of court reporters to a higher level in the eyes of the judicial system and the general public, and it was seen by much of the rest of the world as something long overdue.
Senate Bill 6450 also passed in the 2010 legislative session with little or no opposition due to some tireless work behind the scenes in Olympia for the last two years by our current President, Roger Flygare. This bill was a recognition and affirmation by our State legislature that all professionals need continuing education in order to stay abreast of the rapid technological advances that are occurring in our particular profession and to keep our ethics strong.
If court reporters want to be perceived and paid as professionals, then we must adhere to the responsibilities that are required of other professions.
While many high-paying professions have continuing education such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, many other professions around the country are concerned about keeping up to date and current on new laws and new technology. Some of those professions are barbers, physical therapists, x-ray techs, real estate agents, teachers, plumbers and construction contractors.
Many people think the difference between a job and a profession is perception, but more often than not it’s the obvious commitment to quality and the maintenance of the technical expertise required to perform at a high level for those people using your services.
Stepping into the fray a few years ago, and not being an official reporter, I was first taken aback when learning of the fact that tape recordings or other digital recordings were being transcribed after the fact and then used on appeal in criminal and civil trials. Upon further investigation, I found a new standard was being promulgated in the legal community called “adequate for appellate purposes,” rather than accurate or verbatim. I learned that transcribers could be court reporters but didn’t have to be, that they were just guessing as to who said what since they weren’t there, if they couldn’t understand something they just said “inaudible” and kept going, and that was somehow being considered as adequate for appellate review. As a court reporter I found that practice appalling! So, what to do?
I knew I needed to get some knowledge to find out what was happening, so I joined WCRA and started asking questions. I found out that a lot of people didn’t know there was a problem, let alone how to fix it or come against it or even to be literate enough on the subject to debate an attorney who said, “Why do we even pay you people anyway? Couldn’t we just tape it and have my secretary type it up later? She’s a lot cheaper than you are.”
After getting involved in WCRA, going to continuing education seminars and workshops, and staying abreast of the current thinking around the country as best I’m able, I now feel like I can adequately argue for court reporting and defend against the idea that court reporters should be replaced by electronic or digital recordings. By golly, I’m a digital court reporter, utilizing computer-aided technology with digital audio-synch capabilities, creating a verbatim, instantaneous, realtime, direct-to-text technology.
But what if no one asks me the question? That’s why we as Court Reporters must educate the public, our lawmakers, the press, and our courtroom personnel, one person at a time if need be, on why we are irreplaceable, so that we don’t get replaced by an uninformed electorate trying to be penny-wise, or by vested interests in the digital recording community spreading incorrect information to an uninformed public.
Who will tell them the truth? We will, if we know what it is. And we’ll know what it is if we continue to educate ourselves. Sounds like continuing education is more than a good idea, it is job security through a more intelligent group of savvy reporters and a higher-quality product being given to the public. That’s win-win all around, I say.
Mark E. King, CCR #2812
Area 1 Director
WCRA Legislative Comm. Chair
People tend to forget why we take down the record in the first place and who we really are. We take down testimony, first, to provide an unadulterated record of what was said. Secondly, or maybe even firstly, we serve as an impartial witness to the fact that person was there testifying and the fact that person said what he or she said. We are the only party at the proceedings who is not affected by the outcome of the case, therefore, our presence and our certified verbatim record are the most vital instruments for the ultimate dispensing of justice. Anyone can insert “inaudible” into a record, but what court reporter would do that? The court reporter is the most important person there because that professional is their protection against misconduct in the proceedings. No machine, device, or system can replace a person who, by professional standing and skill, can be a witness and attest to what was said and by whom. (If they try it, raise your rates!)