ILNews

Court reporters make push for licensing

Dave Stafford
September 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Court reporters will make a case to a legislative commission this week that the state should set minimum standards and licensing criteria for professionals who record and compile the transcripts of judicial proceedings.

The Commission on the Courts’ agenda for its meeting Tuesday includes discussion about licensing court reporters. There currently are no minimum standards for the profession in Indiana, according to Vickie Dudeck, president of the Indiana Shorthand Reporters Association.  

“We feel that litigants, attorneys, and the general public should be assured that they are getting capable and quality service every time they are involved in a situation where the record needs to be captured or memorialized in a state court matter (in courts or in discovery), similar to the standards and rules established for all federal court cases,” Dudeck said. “The fact that it is a lower court matter shouldn't automatically mean that it's a crap shoot when it comes to the quality of the record.”

Dudeck said the group will present to the commission Tuesday to discuss how a licensing or certification system in Indiana would benefit courts. She said more than 20 states have minimum standards for court reporters, and the lack of such standards would improve the quality of transcripts and foster ethics in the profession.

“What we are proposing is not that we dictate the method of capturing the record (steno, digital recording, or voice writing), but instead we establish some standards in Indiana,” she said.

Also before the commission Tuesday will be discussion of whether there is a need for more than one court-appointed psychiatrist when a defendant raises the issue of insanity.

The commission meets at 10 a.m. Tuesday in Room 431 of the Statehouse, 200 W. Washington St., Indianapolis. The meeting is open to the public, or may be viewed via online webcast at http://www.in.gov/legislative/2441.htm.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Court Reporter Certification
    It is admirable to seek state certification. But it won't happen. The cost of running a state board is expensive. If Indiana does implement state licensure no less than 50% oof all steno reporters will leave Indiana as they will not be successful candidates to pass both speed and general knowledge requirements. If they are granfathered in, then what is achieved? The same people are still responsible. Nothing is really gained in the short run. Besides, let's face facts. Certainly steno court reporting is a dying art. Within 7 years 50% of all stenos will be retiring and there will be no steno to replace them. So what's to be achieved in the long run. The best insurance policy for Indiana to secure 100% accuracy in taking down, recording, playback, transcribing, not just for Indiana, but for every state is to introduce DAR in every courtroom and make it the official record AND still use court reporters / transcribers who can produce a transcript that is timely, verifiable and always accessible. A steno certification in today's Digital Age is meaningless.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT