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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT