National Court Reporting and Captioning Week

National Court Reporting and Captioning Week is right around the corner! The awareness week, February 17 – 23, pulls together a nationwide effort to highlight the contributions of stenographic court reporters and captioners to society and to showcase the career opportunities that exist in the court reporting and captioning fields.

Washington, DC Building Renovation by Emily Owen

How quickly time flies! We can hardly believe it’s been almost 6 years since Capital Reporting Company’s Washington, DC branch moved into its current downtown location. As a national company it was only appropriate that one of our many locations be in the Nation’s capital!  Also very DC-esque: our building is the former Moroccan embassy!

With over 3,500 reporters across the country and offices from New York to San Francisco and everywhere in between, you can be confident that Capital has you covered – anywhere, anytime!

Keeping ‘Em Honest with Video Depositions by Wayne Cohen

Have you ever walked out of a deposition heady with the knowledge that you “won”?  You had your Perry Mason moment and obtained critical information, perhaps even an admission, during your interrogation of the witness.  On the way back to your office you call your colleagues to report the good news.  Then you call your client.  Things couldn’t be better for the case.  You think, “I am one good lawyer!”  After sharing the good news back at the firm, your law partner asks, “Did the witness waive reading and signing?”  You exhale deeply.  “No, there wasn’t a waiver,” you answer, brought a little bit back down to earth.

Fast forward thirty days.  The witness has elected to review the deposition pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or the parallel state rule). Rule 30(e) allows for modifications in the testimony given by a witness, and specifically provides that there may be “changes in form or substance.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(emphasis added).  All the witness must do is submit a signed statement, commonly known as the errata sheet, along with a list of the changes and the reasons for making the changes.  At that point the deposition is deemed to have been changed.  You receive the errata sheet in the mail, and realize that your supposed victory has been thwarted; both form and substantive changes have been made.  Yikes!  The witness clearly consulted with his lawyer and decided that the answer was awful.  It needed to be changed.

How could this problem have been avoided?  Perhaps the most effective technique that some trial attorneys use to balance Rule 30(e) is to videotape the deposition.  It may not be economical to videotape all depositions in a case; however, for key witnesses, having a videographer makes sense. To be clear, the videotape does not prevent the witness from making a substantive change as Rule 30(e) still applies regardless of the manner in which the deposition was recorded. That said, the statement made on the videotape – in almost all circumstances – can still be used for impeachment purposes. It remains a prior inconsistent statement which can be used to cross examine the witness. The witness will have an opportunity to explain at trial exactly why the statement was later changed, but if in the videotape the witness appears confident and assured when giving the original answer, the explanation for the change will not be credible. Using a written transcript to impeach a witness simply does not pack the same punch.

In addition to helping keep witnesses honest, videotaping also helps the jury comprehend and retain the testimony. Imagine that you are deposing Danny, the defendant driver in a case, and you have reason to believe that Defendant Danny smoked marijuana before injuring your client. You ask, “Did you smoke marijuana before the accident?” Danny pauses, looks down, and then looks at his lawyer as if waiting for an objection. Hearing nothing, he then looks down again. After a tortuous 30 seconds, he answers in a meek and quiet tone, “No.” The transcript of the deposition would simply read:

Q: Did you smoke marijuana before

the accident?

A: No.

The videotape, however, tells a very different story because it provides information beyond simply the written transcript. Here, it shows Defendant Danny’s demeanor, shifting eyes, and pregnant pause. Because the jury is actually seeing and hearing the testimony, the retention and impact of the testimony are greater.

A final benefit from videotaping a deposition is that it can also help keep a check on opposing counsel. Putting aside the ethical impropriety of coaching a witness during a deposition, we have all encountered lawyers who suggest answers to witnesses. An opposing lawyer may say, “Answer the question if you know,” with a heavy emphasis on the “if you know” part. The witness recognizes the cue and then proclaims, “I don’t know.” Videotaping depositions deters this conduct because lawyers recognize that videotaped depositions show tone in real time; a written transcript does not. Witnesses also take non-verbal cues from their lawyers. A simple sigh, roll of the eyes, or shifting of papers can send a message to a client. Obstructionist lawyers are far less likely to engage in this behavior during videotaped depositions.

In short, videotaping depositions is an effective way of insuring that your record is accurate, and gives you the best chance of winning your case.

Wayne Cohen, General Counsel for Capital Reporting Company, is a graduate of the University of Michigan (BBA) and the University of Miami (JD). He is also a national commentator, appearing on Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, and multiple other networks. Mr. Cohen has also serve as a Law Professor of Trial Skills (George Washington University School of Law).

Capital Reporting Company supports Race Against The Odds

Capital Reporting Company® is a proud sponsor of The Race Against The Odds! The National Race Against the Odds is the leading fundraising and awareness event for the Washington, DC Metro Area Chapter of The Cure Starts Now.

Now in its fourth year, the National Race Against the Odds serves as the premier “umbrella” race for The Cure Starts Now – currently, eight other CSN chapters across the country are implementing races locally.

Court Reporting Services

If you need a court reporter in New York, or a court reporter in Washington, DC, Capital Reporting Company® has you covered!  On any given day our court reporters cover jobs in New York, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Denver, San Francisco … or any other city where your case may take you. Name the location, and we will be there! With offices from coast to coast, and court reporters available nationwide, we are proud to serve lawyers from firms all over the country.

Originally published in 2nd Quarter:

Words of Wisdom: The Objection

By Shari Broussard, VicePresident

1) When the words “object, objection,” et cetera, are used alone, put a period
after them before the reasons for the objection are enumerated.

Example: Mr. X: Object. Beyond the scope.

2) When there is a coordinate conjunction – – and, but, or, nor – – between
each of the objections, use no punctuation before any of the conjunctions.

Example: Mr. X: Objection. Compound and vague and beyond the scope.

3) When there is no coordinate conjunction between any of the objections, use
a period after each separate objection, whether it is a complete sentence or a
fragment, before going on to the next.

Example: Mr. X: Objection. Compound. Vague. It is beyond the scope.

4) When a coordinate conjunction is used only before the last objection,
separate each objection with a comma, and use a comma before the final
conjunction also.

Example: Mr. X: I object. It is vague, compound, and beyond the scope.

5) When the objection is followed by or combined with a prepositional phrase,
use no punctuation.

Example: Mr. X: Object as to relevancy.

Capital is a GSA schedule holder – Court Reporting & Transcription Services

Capital Reporting Company® works with a diverse group of government agencies throughout the Washington, DC area, and the nation.

Are you an authorized user of the GSA? We offer GSA approved rates for all of our services such as  court reporting and transcription services in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, PA, New York City, NY, and San Rafael, CA. Additionally, since we are a national company, we can offer competitive “open market” rates across the nation. With this combination, we are truly your one stop shop!

Check out our website for a partial client list as well as download our GSA Capability Statement which describes our government services.

Need a quote for some upcoming work? Please contact Elizabeth King at 202-857-DEPO or visit our GSA quote page for more information.

Want to work as a court reporter in Washington, DC or as a court reporter in New York City?

We are experiencing immense growth and are always looking for professional, experienced stenographers and transcriptionists to join our successful team.  While working at Capital Reporting Company®, our court reporters and transcriptionists are constantly exposed to large, nationally recognized law firms and have the opportunity to earn high incomes.

We are currently seeking applications for court reporters in Washington, D.C., court reporters in Baltimore, MD, court reporters in New York, NY, court reporters in Philadelphia, PA,  court reporters in Chicago, IL, and all other domestic markets.

Protect Yourself: Practical Tips to Keep from Being Sued

Written by General Counsel Wayne Cohen, and originally published in the Journal of Court Reporting [October 2010]:

If mistakes are made in the record, a case’s outcome may be forever changed. Who knows this better than court reporters?  The question is not whether a mistake will be made but rather what can you do to protect yourself before a mistake happens.

Not everyone understands what an arduous job court reporting can be. I recently gave a presentation at a conference for CEOs. Before I spoke, the facilitator introduced me. He started with my bio —commenting on where I attended college and law school, my litigation background, and my professorial duties. Then he went on to say, “Wayne also serves as general counsel for a national court reporting company … you know, those people who type stuff up. The ones who try to take down what you say and use those funky machines to get it all down.”

What could I do but give a hearty laugh. “Type stuff up?” “Try to take down what you say?” Uh, yeah. There’s quite a bit more to the court reporting profession than that! What he should have said was “… you know, those people who have honed their skills so that they can take down 95 percent of what you say without making a mistake.”

Obviously, court reporters play a critical role in litigation. Making a verbatim transcript from the spoken word creates an historical record of the case, and it is that historical record that becomes the basis for justice. Take a moment to elevate yourself to 30,000 feet and think about the work that you actually do. Documenting statements of witnesses as well as judicial proceedings is heavy stuff. If mistakes are made in the record, a case’s outcome —and the life of a corporate or individual litigant — may be forever changed. Let’s face it. Everyone makes mistakes. Yes, everyone. In the words of the late UCLA basketball coach John Wooden, “If you’re not making mistakes, then you’re not doing anything.  I’m positive that a doer makes mistakes.”

Who is better to know this than court reporters? After all, it is those mistakes in the world that oftentimes become the basis for litigation. Drivers on the road make mistakes. Physicians make mistakes. Product manufacturers make mistakes. So do court reporters.  The question is not whether a mistake will be made, but rather what steps should be taken to protect yourself before a mistake happens.

Before moving on, let’s take a moment and examine what really constitutes a “mistake” for a court reporter. Court reporters are human and are not expected to transcribe at 100 percent accuracy. In fact, no court reporter can transcribe at 100 percent accuracy for a sustained period of time. Even though requirements vary depending on the type of certification,  it’s safe to say that a 95 percent accuracy rating will suffice. That means that a high- functioning court reporter will transcribe 95 out of every 100 words correctly. It also means that the same high-functioning court reporter will miss 5 words out of every 100.

Put another way, assuming that most witnesses will talk at 100 to 175 words per minute, even an excellent court reporter can still have several mistakes each minute. Do these errors rise to the level of negligence? It’s hard to say. In the courtroom context, judicial immunity may extend to the court reporter. For example, in Halsey v. Dallas County, a court reporter was sued for creating an inaccurate and unreliable transcript. Ultimately, the court held that the court reporter was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. Obviously, laws differ from state to state, and what applies in the judicial context for a criminal case probably does not apply in the civil context.  The question then arises as to what exactly would be acceptable  errors and what would be negligence for a court reporter transcribing a deposition.

Some mistakes in transcripts probably would not provide grounds for a claim. Well, it’s not to say that the mistakes don’t matter; rather, it’s just to say they don’t matter enough. If a witness to an accident testifies that she “saw the plaintiff drinking a Coke right before the accident,” but the court reporter takes down that she “saw the plaintiff drinking a Coca-Cola right before the accident,” odds are that this won’t matter. No one is going to raise any Cain over the fact that the witness said Coke but the court reporter transcribed Coca-Cola. The mistake is not relevant to any issue. On the other hand, if the court reporter took down that the witness said she “saw the plaintiff look down while drinking a Coke right before the accident,” then the mistake could be substantial and have a major impact on the case. Clearly, some mistakes matter more than others.

In order for a plaintiff to successfully litigate a claim against a court reporter, the plaintiff would have to establish two things:  first, that the court reporter departed from the standard of care; and second, that the departure from the standard of care caused some sort of damage. Departing from the standard of care means that the court reporter’s mistakes went above and beyond what is acceptable. Virtually every industry has certain “standards” by which conduct is governed. Whether we’re talking about a pilot or a pediatrician, there are standards of care in place. Court reporting is no different.

NCRA promulgates standards for accuracy. For example, in order to currently become a RPR, NCRA requires that you be able to maintain 95 percent accuracy. Some states have their own certification requirements that may or may not mirror those of the NCRA. For argument’s sake, let’s say that a court determines that the standard for a court reporter is 95 percent. Then if you maintained that accuracy, the plaintiff’s claim would fail.

But the requirements don’t stop there. Even if a plaintiff were to prove that a court reporter departed from the standard of care, then some damage must be shown. Did the plaintiff lose the case because of the testimony? Or did the plaintiff lose the case because of some other reason? Obviously either a court or jury would decide that issue, but the fact remains that the plaintiff must show some damages that were proximately caused by the problems with the transcript.

It is also worth mentioning that Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which has been adopted in some form by every state, permits a lawyer to make changes to a transcript. There is an opportunity for the witness to read the transcript before it’s finalized.  If a lawyer knows that an error occurred in a transcript, then the lawyer can correct the mistake. Similarly, a lawyer has the option of having the deposition videotaped. Videotaping is one method of ensuring that any errors in a transcript have some form of backup and can be corrected.

The point here is straightforward: In the event a court reporter was sued for taking down testimony improperly, there’s not a court in the country that would set the standard at 100 percent accuracy.  That should provide some relief. Nevertheless, it is still important to take steps to protect yourself. To that end, here are five specific tips that may help you from being listed as a defendant in a case caption.

1) Be careful. I know that sounds trivial, but it’s true. In many cases, you will easily understand the critical questions that are being asked. Go the extra mile to make sure that you really focus on the key aspects of the case. Every profession in the world has duties that require more focus than others. A neurosurgeon will tell you that brain surgery requires focus all of the time, but there are times during the surgery that require a heightened sense of awareness. A professional baseball player will tell you that during the game he must be “on” all the time, but that when he stands in the batter’s box, he really must concentrate. When you’re on the record, you’ve got to be focused all the time. But when key issues arise in the case, dig down and increase your attention. Your end product will be better.

2) Get insurance. You can purchase an “E&O” policy, which covers your “errors and omissions.” This type of business liability policy can be purchased to cover insurance agents, real estate agents, brokers, architects, third party administrators, and court reporters. The policy covers a loss incurred because of some negligent act, error, or omission. If you do make a mistake that results in litigation, you want to have the peace of mind to make sure you’re not personally on the hook. Having a policy costs a few bucks, but it’s certainly money well spent. You will sleep better at night, knowing that you have protection in the event you make a mistake and that mistake results in litigation.

3) In addition to keeping your notes, also maintain your backup audio files. If a dispute arises, an audio file can protect you against a claim that you took information down improperly. What better evidence is there than an actual recording of the witnesses’ testimony? Maintaining your audio files past the duration of the statute of limitations makes the most sense. Compressing files and storing them offsite can now be done for a reasonable price. Because most court reporters are independent contractors, agencies may not want to store these for you; that said, you should back up your files where feasible. A backup also will ensure that you can produce a transcript if your notes become corrupted. Not being able to produce a transcript is a surefire way to become a defendant in a case.

(Ed. Note: NCRA recognizes that individual reporters determine the necessity of making or keeping an audio backup of proceedings on an individual basis; however, NCRA does provide guidance in COPE’s advisory opinions for how to handle some of the issues that come up with making audio available to parties. For more information on NCRA’s position, please review the Code of Professional Ethics and Advisory Opinions, which are available on the NCRA website.)

4) Be very careful when using the services of a scopist.  Scopists can serve a very useful purpose. They can help you increase your output and improve your accuracy. But they can also destroy a transcript. A well-intentioned but inexperienced scopist might make changes to your transcript to help “clean” it up when in fact the scopist has made substantive changes to the content. Scopists are not required to hold any certifications. When they work for you, it’s your reputation —and oftentimes license —that is on the line. The bottom line is that using a scopist is fine, so long as you have the final read. Never, ever send a transcript out without having put your eyes on the final copy.

5) All professionals — including court reporters — should stay on top of their game. Take the time to stay current in the industry, including attending continuing education classes. As technology changes, it will continue to become easier to maintain high accuracy levels, which in turn lowers the chances of having any problems.

Being a court reporter is not an easy job. It requires intelligence, hard work, and, most importantly, dogged attention to detail. Because court reporters capture the record, property, money, and freedom often depend on the quality of what was transcribed.

But court reporters, like other professionals, sometimes make mistakes. Odds are that if you’ve read this article, you probably have never found your name on the other side of the “v” in a case caption. That said, you should take steps now to make sure that you’re protected down the road.

Court Reporting in Washington, DC

Did you know that Capital Reporting Company® has an office in the 2nd “coolest” city in America?  Forbes ranked Washington, DC as the 2nd “coolest city” in America.  They used measurements including local restaurants and bars per capita, median age and unemployment rate.  Capital Reporting Company® provides court reporting in Washington, DC among the many other cities in the United States.  Washington, DC isn’t the only area city that made the cut. Forbes also ranked Bethesda 17th and Baltimore 14th.  So whether you need a court reporter in Baltimore, or a court reporter in Bethesda, Capital Reporting Company® can cover all of your court reporting in Maryland!

One of the Top 2 Reporting Companies in the Nation

Capital Reporting Company® was voted one of the Top 2 court reporting companies in the nation in the 2012 Best of The National Law Journal survey!  The first-ever reader’s choice rankings of the nation’s top legal vendors and law schools.  More than 5,000 readers took the survey this spring, voting in 65 different categories for who they believe are providing the best services, products or education to U.S. law firms.  Capital Reporting Company® is the only one in the Top 2 that is independently owned!