Welcome to CSR Nation
One of the agencies that I know sent out a job offer to Massachusetts for a three-day job that needed covered. This reporter, who I won't name, picked up the job. She's had the job for over a month and not turned it in.
Finally, she turned in the first two volumes with multiple mistakes. She still has not turned in the last transcript. She turned in a rough because the court reporting agency had to have something to give to the attorney because he's going to trial. The rough ASCII was literally unreadable.
Now, I don't understand why a court reporter would take work through this website if they are so incompetent that they cannot turn the work in. I wish there was a way I could filter all the bad apples off of here.
The agency owner called me and wanted to know if there is a way that I filter the qualified reporters from the incompetent reporters. I told her no, I have no way to do that. Once I hear someone has done a poor job, I ban them immediately from the website. I'm a full-time reporter myself; there is no way for me to filter through thousands of reporters.
I'm just very frustrated about this situation. This is not the first time it has happened either. There must just be a lot of lousy court reporters out there I guess. Unfortunately, it looks like it cost this agency their client. Unbelievable.
Reporters: Please don't take work from this website if you can't handle the work. You're giving my website a bad name!!
Unfortunately, Deborah, they do get work. The example I posted isn't the first unreadable job I've received to scope. When I was first starting out, I took these and struggled through them. I don't anymore.
Any reporter whose notes read like that is not competent enough for a scopist. That reporter should be doing her own transcription. If I was a scopist and got something like that I would give it back. It isn't worth the $X a page, and that more than tells me the character of the reporter and there is a good liklihood I wouldn't be getting paid timely, if at all.
I just got an email from a "Suspended Member" who is the one that made me post this discussion wanting back on the website. Are you kidding me? There is no way in hell she's getting back on here. I'm sort of surprised she asked.
I told her when she turns in all her work, I'll think about letting her back on here. I only said that as an incentive to get her to turn her work in. That was, however, before I found out that her transcripts were virtually worthless and unreadable.
I wonder if the agency has an obligation to pay this reporter since I'm sure they will have lost a client over this incident.
Oh my gosh, the work is STILL not in?
The agency stands a chance of getting a small claims lawsuit by the attorneys. If they decide to redo the deposition they could charge the agency for their additional attorneys fees and additional costs. The agency should (could) write a letter to the attorneys advising of the situation and offering to redo the depo without any expense (depo fee and transcription), and doing it in realtime, offering an immediate rough draft via email. That would help some.
That's not fair to anyone involved. We all know that when we're asked a question, we answer it in that moment. We then go home and say, oh man, I should have answered it this way. In that situation, it gives the witness the opportunity to go home and think about the questions, and come back with a better answer or not the same answer. It's awful all the way around. I'd sue the reporter.
Did the agency ask the reporter if she had tape recorded the depo? Anyone that bad would surely have taped it. If she did, the agency could offer the reporter we will not say anything about you if you give us the audio. Then take that audio and rewrite it and get out out (like by Monday).
I don't have any idea if she taped it. Maybe there was a videographer there. I think the first two volumes were turned in. Not sure if the third volume ever got turned in fixed. The office did get an unusable rough.
A couple of points:
1) I think you should make the COVER DEPOS only available to CERTIFIED court reporters. It is just NOT THAT DIFFICULT to pass the RPR! For goodness sake, NCRA made it so one can pass it in four parts! Geez, most of us experienced reporters passed it when we had to pass the Skills section in one sitting! One sitting!
2) The reporting market is flooded with UNcertified court reporters who are being chosen for jobs, due to their low-ball rates. THAT must be stopped.
3) The idea of "outing" anyone on CSRNation is a VERY bad idea, one that can be subject to lawsuits.
4) In the area of the website where SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO HIRE SOMEONE, there should be a large WARNING that CSRNation does not vouch for the work product of anyone responding to an ad, that the agency or person wishing to hire someone needs to be responsible and vet, which includes asking for: certifications, resumes, references, etc.
5) UNcertified reporters should only have access to the general areas, NOT to request to be part of the CSRNation hiring pools.
P. S. NCRA has a few online venues where reporters speak about many issues. NCRA does not permit "outing" of people, NOR does it permit posting of any pricing, due to legal issues. To say, "keep it legal," does not "make it legal," and it subjects everyone on the site to be a party to the lawsuit, as NCRA tells its members.
Kelli, please, no "outing" and no "pricing."
Thank you for your consideration.
P. P. S. NCRA consulted their legal team on these issues. Hopefully, this site could use it as an example, with CSRNation having had to expend zero dollars; just use NCRA policies as an example.
First of all, Deby, when have I outed anyone here? I don't need you to enlighten me on the obvious. I'm constantly telling everyone to take it offline when talking negatively about anyone. When I see a negative post, I delete it.