For the last few years, court administrators have been on a rampage to replace official court reporters and replace them with recording equipment, electronic, digital, whatever, to shave costs out of the budget. 

Interesting development recently regarding Washington State Certified Court Reporters rising up in protest of the newest wrinkle:  Requiring them to be certified by a lower standard of quality that is promulgated by the American Association of Electronic Reporting & Transcription.

Washington Freelance Shorthand Reporters Association (WFSRA) and the Washington Court Reporters Association (WCRA) had members present to speak in opposition of the requirement to ask their members to submit to the AAERT examination.

Roger Flygare (Past President of WFSRA & WCRA) at the outset suggested that rather than replace live reporters with inferior machines that the courthouse rethink its hiring practices and use live court reporters instead and spoke to the fact that CCR's are already certified by the State of Washington Department of Licensing .  Phyllis Lykken and Steve Crandall (WCRA) offered their letter drafted by local counsel that "de facto" certification of the transcription practice by CCR's is unwise for setting up standards that apply only to King County and might be in conflict with state regulations.

After a stressful conversation for all present, it was decided to rethink this requirement and reconsider the implications.

In early April 2012, courthouse administrators sent out a letter informing all concerned parties that CCR's will not be required to sit for further certification; however people who are not certified by DOL as certified court reporters will have to take and pass the examination.  The date examination hasn't been established nor the location identified.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

What does this mean to a lawyer bringing litigation in King County?

It seems as though under the guise of cost containment lawyers who need accurate and complete transcripts will be on the losing end of the stick. 

It has been pointed out numerous times across the country and in Washington State that audio recordings have large gaps and those gaps are sometimes big enough to drive a semi through.  Some transcripts have had up to 24% of the words spoken not in the transcript! 

Those huge gaps are typically represented by one word descriptors, e.g., inaudible, undecipherable, unintelligible as well as others.

Studies have shown that managed recording systems, a person who monitors the proceeding with headphones on, does not decrease costs for the courthouse or litigants but rather increases costs across the board. 

I would be happy to provide those studies to anyone who has an interest in preserving accuracy of their transcripts. 

I would think that if you have a matter that has every chance, with your crystal ball you might be able to tell which ones may or may not, to go up on appeal that you would insist on having accurate transcripts to aid in your appeal.

Recently, I spoke with a prosecuting attorney who shared with me that they had had cases dismissed over faulty transcripts....this was a criminal prosecutor!  People who have committed serious crimes are being let free because of bad, faulty, missing words kinds of transcript.

We as a community should not allow this to be happening.  There are practical solutions.  We just need to implement them.  King County is not following the rules as promulgated in the RCWs as far as staffing of court reporters.  The legal community needs to be heard on this important issue...not tomorrow but today!

Best wishes always
from your Guardian of the Record ~