Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help M*Modal Nuance New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Games Faith Board Prayer Requests Health Issues

ADVERTISEMENT



Main Board Today's Top Viewed: I Asked Why.. (Views: 32)

the CR profession has several sides - anon

Posted: Jul 22nd, 2024 - 4:31 pm In Reply to: The point is - sm

The cheapo way to go is using legal transcriptionists typing it from scratch from audio.

Scopists are not typing from scratch. They go through the transcript and correct any misstrokes or untranslates in the CR's notes, do editing.

Proofreaders are hired to do just that, proofread.

Some CR's use both scopists and proofreaders, some use one, and some do it all themselves. I've never encountered a CR who uses a legal transcription company. Instead, they find their own scopists and proofreaders. They pay them out of their own pocket, so if they are doing large volumes of depos, it pays off if you have a good team to help.

I really don't know why any CRs are hooked up with a legal transcription company. Maybe the big box companies are doing this.

To the poster who said the CR is only writing a word here or there or steno gibberish, it wouldn't surprise me if that is because of a trend of fake CRs. I know for a fact that because of the shortage of CR's (and I'm talking about actual court reporters who have passed exit speeds, have state/national certifications and take pride in their work), some deposition companies are sending out people who pretend to write on the steno machine but are really just there to record the audio (would be very easy to do in a remote depo). There are a lot of attorneys who want and request a steno CR, as that is the gold standard. I interned with a CR who did Zoom depos, and she had one camera on her face and a second camera on her hands so the attorneys could see she was an actual steno writer.

The shoddy way to produce a transcript is to have a transcriptionist type it from audio. This "alternative method" has already been outlawed in one state, and other states are working on passing laws to outlaw it too. Why? The final product is inferior to an actual CR being present and capturing the record verbatim.

There have been cases where judges refuse to admit the deposition into evidence if it wasn't produced by a CR who was present at the depo, produced the transcript, and certified it.

The whole point of a CR is having a trained person present who can take down the record, stop when people talk over each other, ask for repeats if something isn't heard.

I don't care if this bends anyone out of shape to point out the inferiority of producing transcripts by mainly relying on transcriptionists. Yes, it is a job, and everyone has to make a living. But it is driving down the page rates of actual CRs, and it can be pretty lucrative. There will always be attorneys who don't care, just get it done the cheapest way possible.

On the other hand, there are attorneys who don't want this. They want the gold standard.

Maybe people are going back and forth on here because these 2 sides of transcript production rarely cross in the real world. You're working for legit CRs or you're working with crap companies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post A Reply Reply By Email Options

Complete Discussion Below: ( marks the location of current message within thread)
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved