The most stand-out reason is realtime translation and daily copy capabilities that are currently only available with a court reporter provide immeasurable benefits to judges and litigants alike. The reality is, when considering accuracy and expediency, coupled with the most cost-effective methods of capturing the record in courtroom after courtroom around the country, many courts of record are now choosing to retain and/or bring stenographic or voice court reporters back rather than relying on digital or analog recording systems. ![]() ![]() When judges were asked to answer questions about retaining court reporters in Pierce County Superior Court in Washington State, a study of 30 counties in the state was conducted and concluded what court reporters across America have known for decades: “there are no recording systems which can take the place of a court reporter currently.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |