Court Reporting Bill Passes House

"WE WERE WEARING bell bottoms and love beads the last time the regulation was revised," Marcia G. Patrisso, president of the NH Court Reporters Association, (NHCRA) likes to say of the statute that certifies court stenographers in New Hampshire. HB 59, a revision of RSA 331-B that sets standards for the certification of court reporters in New Hampshire, had passed the House and was awaiting Senate consideration at press time. (A roundup of proposed legislation in the February 22 issue of Bar News mistakenly said the bill's new definition would also affect the "court monitors" used by the superior court to oversee recordings of proceedings for the official record.) The bill is not exactly radical, but the association's advocacy of it indicates a new outspokenness for the courtroom professionals who consider themselves the "silent partners" of the legal profession.

HB 59 now calls for those certified by the state to be called "certified court reporter" (CCR); adds certification for reporters using "voice reporting" technology (informally known as "steno maskers" - there are two in the state currently); upgrades the skills requirement for all certified court reporters; and adds an annual continuing education requirement.

The bill also contains a lengthy paragraph of titles that cannot be used in the state by someone not licensed under the statute (court recorder, shorthand reporter, certified shorthand reporter, shorthand court reporter, verbatim reporter, verbatim court reporter and court stenographer, to name a few) that indicate the level of confusion that exists in the field. The NHCRA, which represents 74 of the 107 state-certified reporters in the state, acknowledges that advances in recording and voice-to-text technology have led some to question the future of their profession. Consequently, they are becoming more proactive in explaining the value of their training and pointing to new uses of their skills. Patrisso said that new software allows court stenographers to provide drafts of their work - either at the end of the session or, with additional equipment and training, real-time transcripts. In addition, trained stenographers are also in demand to assist students with disabilities and to provide closed-captioning services for broadcasting. "We are not going to fade away," says Bob Perry, a retired official superior court reporter who directs the NHCRA's legislative efforts.

Nevertheless, the reporters and their steno machines are gradually disappearing in the state's superior courts. The superior court is not replacing the 17 certified court reporters on its staff as they resign or retire, and it recognizes no distinction between a transcript produced by a court reporter and one that is transcribed from a recording overseen by a court monitor. According to Joan Bishop, the superior court coordinator, certified court reporters (using stenographic equipment) and the 19 staff court monitors are interchangeably assigned to provide records of proceedings.

The cost difference to the state between the two types of record-keepers is substantial - court reporters are in a salary grade where they earn between $43,000 to $55,000, while the monitors (minimum of five years of secretarial experience required) are in a salary range in the mid-$20,000s to $31,000. However, litigants ordering transcripts of proceedings pay the same per-page rate for transcripts produced from either kind of record. The staff court reporters transcribe their own notes and are paid separately for the transcriptions, while tape-recorded proceedings are transcribed by a transcription service.

With respect to the court reporters' contention that their methods are more accurate, Bishop points out that the monitors are trained to keep detailed logs during the proceedings, recording who is speaking and noting special terminology, names and exhibit information. She also adds that the tape provides a reliable backup. "With a state-of-the-art recording system, at least there is a tape to listen to to correct a mistake, but with a shorthand reporter, the record is entirely based on his or her hearing," she says.

Patrisso disagrees with Bishop's assessment. "A comparison cannot be made between a court reporter, who is creating a verbatim record of the proceedings, and a monitor, who is charged with monitoring a tape recorder while making entries on a log. The court reporter is capable of producing an instantaneous verbatim record, whereas the monitor can only produce a tape-recording," said Patrisso. She added that the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics recognizes court reporting as an information technology profession and that court reporters generally possess a two- to four-year postsecondary school degree.

Many court officials remain convinced of the value of the shorthand reporters' training. US District Court - NH Clerk James Starr says his court uses only certified shorthand reporters, and he believes their transcripts are more accurate than transcribed recordings. (The only time electronically recorded transcripts are used by the federal trial court occurs when the magistrate holds a hearing at night or at another location, such as a police station, and a stenographic reporter is not available.)

Patrisso remains upbeat about the future of court reporting as a profession, and is proposing to start a school in New Hampshire to train new reporters because shortages now exist. In fact, she points to congressional support for legislation appropriating $75 million over the next five years to train real-time stenographic reporters to meet the captioning and real-time transcription needs for disabled people established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

"People consider court reporters to be dinosaurs, but while many of our activities may involve doing old things in new ways, the fact of the matter is that reporting as a profession is thriving on many levels, due in large part to groundbreaking technology," Patrisso said. "That technology enhances the work that court reporters do, but will never replace the human part of the equation."

Creating a Better Record

TRAINED COURT REPORTERS say many lawyers are not aware of how they need to work more closely with the shorthand or verbatim reporters to ensure the most accurate and unambiguous record. Here are just a few of their pointers. Look for a future Bar News article featuring more of these tips.

• A wink and a nod are equally useless. When deponents or witnesses nod or shake their heads, the witnesses, not the reporters, must verbally interpret their gestures.
• Uh-uh or Unh-unh? While vague utterances may be understood as affirmative or negative in context by those following the case, it is poor practice to allow them to be left to the reporter's interpretation.
• Advance preparation. Provide the reporter with advance notice of unfamiliar names or technical terms, and, during testimony, spell out names and unfamiliar words to enhance the accuracy of the record.

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