A CHANGE IN the way the courts pay court reporters is causing delays for those seeking transcripts, and may impact the Supreme Court’s new process of automatically accepting nearly all appeals.

One of the cost-cutting measures implemented by the judicial branch during recent budget cuts was to eliminate the pay court reporters receive for preparing transcripts outside of work hours. Reporters had previously been compensated for preparing transcripts on their own time.

(The courts also no longer pay for equipment for court reporters or maintenance thereof; for court reporter continuing education; or for court reporters’ renewal fees.)

Because of the elimination of transcript income, court reporters must now find time in their regular work days to prepare transcripts, but due to the other responsibilities reporters must attend to on a daily basis, transcribing is often delayed, according to Richard A Molan of Cook & Molan, Concord, the attorney who is representing a group of the state’s court reporters. The group has not taken any legal action against the courts, but is expressing concerns about the recent changes to the court reporting system.

"Transcripts are getting done a lot more slowly because the court reporters have to do them during the course of their work day, whenever they can find the time," said Molan.

One court reporter, who asked to remain anonymous, said that as a result, appeals and Superior Court hearings may be delayed up to six weeks as parties wait for their transcripts to be produced. And now that the Supreme Court’s new appellate process is under way, more parties will be ordering transcripts, which will further contribute to the backlog. In an earlier interview regarding the new appellate process, Supreme Court Clerk Eileen Fox said that she anticipates that under the new rules, more transcripts will be ordered, and that it could slow down the timetable for producing trial records.

"As a result of all this, you’re not going to have due process," the reporter said.

Donald Goodnow, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), said, however, that the courts are taking measures to avoid such delays. In the Superior Court, those court reporters who need to prepare transcripts are being relieved of their courtroom duties as necessary to allow them time to transcribe, he said.

As far as impacting the new Supreme Court appellate process, Goodnow said that "it remains to be seen" if the change in court reporting will affect the process, "but the court is optimistic the new system will proceed without interruption."

Joan Bishop, court coordinator of the NH Superior Court, said that the superior courts are seeing some delays in transcripts being produced, but she doesn’t attribute that solely to the change in compensating reporters. Bishop said that delays in transcribing are often due to the ebb and flow of requests. "You may have several months when a particular reporter has very few or no requests for transcripts, then a month when he or she has six requests. Obviously this can lead to some backlog for the reporter," said Bishop.

Bishop added that although she is sensitive to the court reporters’ concerns, she believes the change in compensating them simply equates to the elimination of overtime. "They are no longer being paid for working at home, but they’re also not being asked to continue doing so without pay," she said.

Goodnow agreed. "The court reporters continue to be paid their regular salaries, they are just no longer being asked to work nights or weekends," he said. "They are not receiving additional income as independent contractors."

The group of court reporters also takes issue with the fact that although they are no longer receiving additional income for producing transcripts on their own time, the courts continue to collect the same fee for transcripts. "Any money for transcripts is going into the court’s accounts, but is not supporting the court reporters," said Molan.

The recent legislative budget assistant audit of the judicial branch also made further recommendations regarding court reporters: The report recommended eliminating court reporters and replacing them with court monitors and electronic recording systems, measures the court reporters very much oppose. "Court reporters bring a lot more than just recording skills to the courtroom. Live, real-time reporting is far more accurate than recording systems operated by court monitors," said Molan.

The court reporter Bar News spoke to added that electronic systems often fail, and that eliminating court reporters won’t save the courts any money if cases have to be re-tried because the recordings of the proceedings were blank. Also, the courts will still have to send the recordings out to approved transcriptionists for transcribing, which will cost money and could cause delay, since there are only a few transcriptionists approved by the AOC, the reporter said.

She added that the training and professionalism of court reporters should not be overlooked. "We are deemed professionals – we are certified by the state and required to undergo 10 hours of training annually," she said. "Court transcripts will not be as high a quality if you’re simply relying on someone to run a tape recorder. That could affect the outcome of cases."

Goodnow said that the Committee on Justice System Needs and Priorities, a group formed in response to the LBA audit (see sidebar), is considering, among others, the audit report recommendation regarding eliminating court reporters. He said he is not questioning the skill of court reporters, but believes replacing them with electronic recording systems may save the state money. "I have no reservations about the quality and professionalism of court reporters, that is not the issue at all," Goodnow said. "But I believe sound recording can produce an equally professional product and long-term cost savings for taxpayers."

The court reporters’ group has filed a petition to form a union, and Molan said he hopes to get a preliminary hearing on the matter before the Public Employees Labor Relations Board within the next month or so. Goodnow said that he has spoken to some representatives of the court reporters’ group and asked that they send him in writing their concerns, but when the group petitioned to unionize, "I felt it awkward to enter a discussion in the midst of a collective bargaining agreement," Goodnow said.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer