I was pretty clear in my explanation. - The court titles us as scopists Posted: Jan 7th, 2024 - 1:06 pm In Reply to: I'm confused - anon
I also clearly stated I do both straight transcripts from audio AND I do audio speech files (editing).
They are not "two different things". The courts do not use the definitions as you are implying. Frankly, I don't care what term they use as long as they continue to pay me well and on time. I'm not hung up on the semantics.
Yes, I also get notes from the court reports, but not always. I've been doing this long enough whether I have notes or not, it does not affect my job performance.
Research is minimal to nonexistent...it it the obligation of the attorneys to provide whatever information is needed. It is not my responsibility to clean up their errors, as I clearly stated above. Nor is it my responsibility to research or try and determine what it is they want to say, or are saying. It is the attorney's responsibility to clearly state what they want for the record, and to clearly ask questions of the witness to achieve that purpose. I am not employed to decipher what they mean, what they want, research...I am there to give as clear as a transcript as I am able with what I am provided for an historical record of the interview/deposition/court proceeding...nothing more, nothing less.
This is not the same as the medical transcription.
I have also worked for VIQ, but found their requirements/pay substandard. However, that situation may work better for someone else.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
