Just had a crappy job where one attorney (out of 5) wanted a dirty ASCII. When I asked the other attorneys if they would like one, the ordering attorney said she would just email her copy to everybody. This pissed me off on more than one level. What do you think? Hope this doesn't start a trend, since 14 of my last 20 jobs had dirty ASCIIs ordered. Does anyone know how to get around people just emailing our work and getting out of paying for the rough (and the copy)? Also, are we reallllly charging enough for a rough? Like some reporters, I also think this is a cheap way to almost get an expedite, and it is not worth the buck or so a page to drop everything to get these out. Please let me know your thoughts...

Views: 1244

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The time to speak up is in the moment, something to the effect of, "So you all know you will be seeing the charge for the rough ASCII on your bill."

(Expletive), that's galling.
I would have piped up as well and said that the charge was a dollar a page, or whatever the charge was, and if counsel wanted to foot the bill for all of the attorneys, I'd be glad to put it on his/her bill, or in the alternative I could split those costs between the parties like I usually do.
Additionally, I add the following language to all email deliveries. I'm attempting to go Green.

Transcripts and exhibits can easily be shared with co-counsel and support staff. (Please keep in mind that sharing our work product with opposing counsel does not allow us to fairly distribute costs of our services between the parties. Should copy sales diminish, the likely result is a rise in cost of the original transcript. Help court reporters keep your costs to a minimum by protecting our work product.)

I wish there was a "Like" button on this site!  Nice wording, Lisa :-)

Before I e-mail the rough ASCII I would call all attorneys present and reconfirm who wants the rough, and then tell them the cost. If they say the ordering attorney is going to forward it to them, I would call the ordering attorney and tell him/her he/she will be charged for the other attorneys ASCII.
"They do it and we can't stop them"

We can hinder their attempts to copy transcripts by binding transcripts differently.

We can hinder their attempts to forward e-mailed roughs by having the agency send the transcript via E-tran with locks on what you can do with the transcipt.

They may be able to get around it, but it may hinder them.

"We can hinder their attempts to copy transcripts by binding transcripts differently."

In what way? You've got me intrigued.

Thanks, Tricia
Oh, Trina, you should see my thread on Depoman, under ARGHH, labled A New Low.
I had sent an e-tran of a job. The assistant was furious I had put a password on it. I didn't provide any other locks on it and I sent her the password. She flipped out over it. Seriously. We got into a pretty heated discussion (via e-mail) as to my purposes and... Anyhow, she admitted that it was going to be much more difficult for her to e-mail this around to everyone (expert witnesses, other counsel...) if there was a password. I told her all she had to do was forward on the password and enlightened her as that is precisely the reason court reporters try to protect their work product as much as humanly possible so that we can be compensated fairly for the work we do, just like she would like to receive a paycheck for the work she provides her company. Is there seriously no common sense out there?
I think my response to her would have been have each person call me and I will send the e-tran with their own password, that way you can bill each person for the copy.
You know, when I've relayed this back to the different cr firms, they have said they wouldn't charge those people for having received a free copy, nor would they charge their client, the one who was doing the free sharing or sending it to them with a minimal fee. I guess to not make them upset, but why not? Why not charge at least for an O&2 at minimum, right?
I agree. Unfortunately I find that a lot of firms are more out for their client than they are for the reporters anymore, which is getting very frustrating. Everybody is so worried about losing clients instead of compensating the reporters for our hard work.


Latest Activity

Sharon Ross joined Kelli Combs (admin)'s group
6 hours ago
Sharon Ross joined Kelli Combs (admin)'s group
6 hours ago
Sylvia Mendez is now a member of CSRNation
22 hours ago
Kim Kyle commented on Janet's page Scopists
23 hours ago
Heather Suarez updated their profile
Profile IconHeather Suarez and Judy L. Macchello joined Kelli Combs (admin)'s group
Heather Suarez joined Kelli Combs (admin)'s group
Heather Suarez joined Kelli Combs (admin)'s group
Deborah J Schwartz updated their profile
Judy L. Macchello posted a status
"Looking for a remote reporter for a deposition on Monday 8/25/2023 commencing at 3:00 PST. Great rates & client.. Guaranteed pay 7 days."
Bonnie Echmalian commented on Janet's page Proofreaders
Profile IconSusan Monsalvatge-Kennedy and Pohlman USA joined CSRNation

© 2023   Created by Kelli Combs (admin).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service