Tag: Georgia court reporter

There are several types — methods — of court reporting. Which type you need depends on several factors. Probably the two key factors are the nature of the proceeding involved and the use to which the transcript/video will be put. For example, you may need a court reporter for a judicial hearing. Under such circumstances, a video recording may be prohibited by local rules and/or the court’s preferences and may be unwieldy in practice. As another example, you may need to have a real-time transcript that can be quickly “read back” during the proceedings. Under those circumstances, you need a court reporting method that creates an ongoing live transcript. Not all methods of court reporting are designed to produce an ongoing live transcript.

Other factors that impact the decision about which type of court reporting is best include:

• The ease of retrieval
• Ease of use for the lawyers involved
• Ease of presentation to judges, arbitrators, jurors, and others
• Court rules and rules of other types of proceedings
• Need for a written transcript and when is the written transcript needed
• Planned storage method
• Expected length of storage
• Cost
• Client preferences
• And other factors

Often, more than one type of transcript is desired, and those choices have to be made in advance. For example, if you think you will need a video transcript, that decision must be made in advance since a written transcript cannot be converted into a video transcript. If there is a need for a visual presentation of a written transcript, then persons must be chosen to read the transcript, and this has obvious disadvantages. By contrast, a video can be translated into a written transcript.

In terms of output, written and visual are the two options. However, as noted, there are several options with respect to how the testimony/proceedings are recorded. These include:

• Video recording — with various types of video recording devices; typically, a written transcript is generated after the fact from the recording; generally automatically created when virtual or remote testimony or proceedings are involved
• Stenography — the most common method of court reporting, the best process for creating an ongoing live transcript that can be “read back” if needed during the proceedings; the process involves a court reporter using a steno machine to record the proceedings in real-time; the steno keystrokes can be read by the stenographer; later, keystrokes can be converted into text transcript often with the use of a computer; generally, a voice recording device is also used for quality control and accuracy
• Voice recording — has become somewhat uncommon; no steno machine is used; the voice recording is converted to readable text after-the-fact; various types of audio recording equipment are used
• Computer voice writing — use of computer speech recognition software to convert audio into text in real-time

 Contact Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting Today

 For more information, call the experienced court reporters at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. We follow the best practices in order to provide excellent litigation support to our customers. Contact us today to learn about our services and how we can help you.

It is not quite standard practice, but video depositions are becoming increasingly common even if the lawyers involved do not expect to use the video at trial. Of course, there are times when a video deposition is needed, such as when a witness is infirm, might be close to death, is overseas, or will be unavailable for live testimony at trial. These circumstances will, by rule, be designated as evidence depositions and will be taken pursuant to those rules.

Other than evidence depositions, when considering Noticing a discovery deposition via video, there are some advantages and disadvantages to consider. Note that cost is not too much of a factor since having a deposition videotaped does not increase the cost substantially. Further, a written transcript is almost always needed, so a video discovery deposition does not necessarily save the costs of transcription.

The disadvantages involve a number of issues. First, setup and arrangement can be more complicated. This involves questions of an appropriate visual setting. These include an appropriate chair and proper background for the witness, correct and effective lighting, placement of counsel, framing, and other visual factors. Second, witness preparation can require extra resources for the attorneys presenting the witness. In effect, the preparation is more akin to preparing a witness for trial. This includes requiring the deponent to wear formal clothing, accessories, hair, and makeup with an “eye” toward how the video would appear to a judge or jury. Preparing the witness with respect to body language and other visual clues is also important.

Third, the same preparation is needed for the lawyers who will be present in the video (or, alternatively, it should be agreed that only the witness will appear on camera). Fourth, lawyer preparation is needed to enhance question “flow.” In a non-video deposition, if a lawyer takes 10 seconds to think of the proper follow-up question, that 10 seconds does not appear in the written transcript. In a video deposition, however, that time gap can be jarring and would potentially require some editing if the video were presented to a jury.

Those disadvantages being listed, there are a great number of advantages to video depositions. These include:

• Taking the visual “measure” of a witness — lawyers know that some witnesses present better than others in a courtroom; issues like posture, mannerisms, visual clues of truthfulness, etc.; video depositions can capture those visual measures;
• Visual measures are available for lawyers new to the case — it is not uncommon for one set of lawyers to “work up” a case and, later, for a set of trial lawyers to take over; video depositions allow new lawyers of the case to make their own assessments of the witnesses; further, that measure is preserved even if the trial occurs years later;
• If used at trial, a video deposition is more useful to a jury than having a written deposition read to them (and more interesting) — the jury can see the visual clues that help their judgment with respect to credibility;
• Video tends to help keep witnesses and counsel well-behaved during the deposition — lawyers tend to fight less on camera;
• Conversely, the video shows “bad” behavior in a deposition — such as anger and bullying tones — in a way that cannot be shown on paper;
• Video depositions tend to be quicker — this is partly because the lawyers involved tend to be more prepared and tend to do less “fishing”.

Contact Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting Today

 For more information, call the experienced court reporters at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. We follow the best practices in order to provide excellent litigation support to our customers. Contact us today to learn about our services and how we can help you.

A court reporter knows that capturing and preserving dialogue in an accurate and precise way is critical, whether the recording occurs in a courtroom, in an environment needing captioning, or during a deposition. The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) is the nation’s leading organization that represents captioners, legal videographers, and court reporters. The NCRA has the important duty to raise awareness in the public eye that court reporters and captioners are the “gold standard” when it comes to producing an accurate record of verbal dialogue.

Why Accuracy Matters

Whether a courtroom hearing or an out-of-court proceeding, an accurate record of what is spoken regarding a legal matter ensures that the judge (or jury) has access to this information. Many times in legal matters, having a solid basis and understanding of what occurred prior to arriving at that particular phase in a case is critical to making a sound decision. This need for an accurate record is critical at the trial, district, and appellate levels of both criminal and civil cases.

When attorneys are preparing their case and evaluating whether to settle or go to trial, depositions and other verbal testimony memorialized in writing are crucial for this analysis. All the parties must have an accurate record of what was said. In an environment that calls for closed captioning, an accurate record of what is said is important so that all of those participating in the event have full access to the presentation and its dialogue. Captioning is particularly critical when used during emergency situations. These events and proceedings are recorded by a live stenographic reporter to accurately capture the dialogue and convert it to written text for later use or public display.

Cheaper is Not Better

There are cheaper alternatives to a live stenographer when it comes to getting a record of the spoken word. Oftentimes, however, these other methods fall short when it comes to accurately capturing and precisely preserving the record. There are significant differences between a qualified stenographic court reporter and other methods of recording events and proceedings. Specifically, a qualified stenographic court reporter must:

• Undergo years of specialized training, which includes classes on topics such as procedures covering court proceedings, depositions, and live captioning; English language; as well as legal and medical terminology;
• Produce concurrent records of proceedings and events, from start to finish, with multiple backup copies;
• Abide by court rules, professional code of ethics, and laws, including maintaining control of the chain of custody of the record produced;
• Be able to differentiate between “on the record” and “off the record” discussions and accurately transcribe the information;
• Successfully create a speech-to-text real-time transcription of dialogue, sometimes with multiple speakers, and provide readable transcription immediately;
• Be able to provide instant readbacks of the record, rough drafts of the transcription, as well as expedited or same-day certified transcripts of the record;
• Obtain advanced certifications, complete continuing education credits, and remain current on the industry’s best practices, latest technology, and standards.

Contact Us Today

Alternative methods to a live stenographic reporter can come with complications. To ensure accurate and quick record transcription, contact Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting today. Our team will make sure you have the highest quality record so that you can move your case forward with confidence.

Legal practitioners across the country can agree that there is a court reporter shortage in the industry. This was an issue before the onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic; the industry had a shortfall of reporters available compared to the demand for services in courtrooms and depositions. As a result, courts and attorneys have had to use creative methods to document and record proceedings and depositions for litigation matters. A majority of the feedback regarding digital and voice reporting as well as remote court reporting has been positive. That being said, many lawyers and courtrooms have experienced serious errors in reporting and recording of proceedings raising issues of both reliability and admissibility.

Nationwide Issue

Becoming a court reporter is no small feat. According to a study conducted by the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), the decline in court reporters began in at least 2014 and is mostly due to two factors — experienced court reporters retiring from the industry and not enough new court reporters entering the industry. According to the NCRA report, on average, only 200 new court reporters enter the industry each year for every 1,120 who are retiring. The report predicted that the total number of qualified stenographers in the country will reduce by at least 50% by 2028 when compared to the number in 2014.

Court reporting requires training and education, including licensing. A decline in the enrollment of students at court-reporting schools makes it difficult to produce new graduates ready to enter the industry. Research shows that less than 10% of those who start certified stenographer court reporting schools graduate from the program.

Remote Court Reporters

Remote court reporting has significantly helped fill the holes where coverage was needed and no in-person stenographer was available. Performing court reporting services remotely helps stenographers provide much-needed services without traveling long distances, and the reporter can be in the same room as the parties. Some states’ laws, however, made remote court reporting difficult. California, for example, passed legislation in 2019 preventing courts from utilizing remote court reporters to memorialize court records and prohibited the use of state money to buy remote court reporting equipment.

Once the COVID-19 pandemic ensued, courts and attorneys alike were forced to pivot and allow remote court reporting to move litigation cases (particularly criminal ones) along. There are advantages to remote court reporting, namely–an increase in the pool of available reporters for proceedings and lowered overall costs because of travel and accommodation savings. Advocates state that these benefits outweigh the negative issues that arise with remote court reporting services, including its failure to provide full and open access to the general public and the difficulties found in reading body language via video.

Court Reporting Services

The skilled team at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting can help provide you with the litigation support you need–whether in person or remotely. Our reporters pride themselves in providing accurate and timely reporting to courts and attorneys alike. Contact us today. If you need international litigation support, contact Ancillary Legal today. Our team has significant experience and can support all your domestic and international litigation needs.