NCRA defends its actions

[Bill Parsons]

The National Court Reporters Association has defended its actions in leading the nationwide anti-contracting campaign. 

The following is from the NCRA website on May 3rd, 2013.

 

"It’s All About Ethics: NCRA Stands by Its Actions on Contracting

"May 3, 2013

"NCRA was disappointed to learn that five court reporting and legal services firms have attacked Arizona, Arkansas, and Nevada in their sovereign efforts to preserve the neutrality and impartiality of court reporters as officers of the court in those states. 

 

"Arguing that their businesses are suffering from anticompetitive contracting restrictions, these five firms filed a complaint with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice on April 23, 2013, in which they asked for the Arkansas and Nevada activities to be 'investigated.' 

 

"The same day, one of the five firms, Magna Legal Services, LLC, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that contracting restrictions in Arizona are unconstitutional. 

 

"Although NCRA is not the direct target of either the DOJ complaint or federal lawsuit, these firms in their public statement have accused NCRA of having “spearheaded” a national effort “to enact anticompetitive laws that restrain trade in the court reporting industry.” 

 

"NCRA believes that the focus should be on ethics, not money.  Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, and other states have the sovereign right and responsibility to make sure that court reporters are neutral and impartial, both in fact and appearance.  The integrity of the judicial process and the confidence of the people under our rule of law require no less.

 

"There is no basis for the allegations being put forward by these firms, and NCRA’s activities are in full compliance with the law. 

 

"NCRA is constitutionally protected in its efforts to support state legislation that will preserve the integrity of the legal system by ensuring the neutral and impartial role of court reporters in the administration of justice as officers of the court and guardians of the record."

 

[Amanda Leigh]

Thank you for posting this, Bill.   

[Bill Parsons]

From the Huseby Court Reporting website with added highlighting and some editing for clarity

 

Challenge of Arizona court reporting statute that impacts national, regional court reporting firms could have impact in other jurisdictions.

Huseby Court Reporting is watching with interest a lawsuit filed by Magna Legal Services against the Arizona Board of Certified Reporters that claims court reporting regulations amended by the state in 2011 are unconstitutional.

 

According to the complaint, Arizona adopted court reporting regulations that end or limit multi-case contracts typically used by national and regional court reporting companies.

 

Although the Arizona state statute is being challenged, the case is in federal court and will be compelling for other jurisdictions.

 

In 2003 all Arizona court reporters were required by law to be certified by the board. 

In 2011 the requirements were amended in a way that Magna claims prevent the application of multi-case contracts in Arizona, which led to Magna’s lawsuit.

 The Arizona Board of Certified Reporters supported the regulations because it says multi-case contracts lower prices of court reporting and other services and allow national and regional court reporting companies to provide services in a way that harms the public and local reporting companies.

 
Magna says in the complaint that it’s the regulations that “injure consumers and the public at large.”

 

In the complaint, Magna says prohibitions against multi-case contracts “injure consumers and the public … because they impermissibly burden interstate and out-of-state commerce without advancing a legitimate local need.” As a result, the complaint says the regulations violate the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

 

The complaint also says the regulations “discriminate between consumers of court reporting services and court reporters in similar circumstances,” and as a result the regulations offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

The complaint says the regulations use state law to insulate local court reporting firms  from competition, and were adopted to benefit certain local court reporting companies,and designed to maintain elevated prices for court reporting services.

 

A recent memo by the Arizona Court Reporters Association Board of Directors says regulations protect consumers, because when an accusation is made against an Arizona court reporter alleging dereliction of duty or negligence the Arizona Supreme Court offers an avenue of redress to victims that  does not exist when an “unlicensed, out of state reporter” is accused.

 

[Amanda Leigh]

Whew!  This is interesting stuff here, Bill.  I am slammed right now--not really keeping on top of current events--so I really appreciate your posts!!

[Kerry F]

This thread on Depoman following the NCRA release is absolutely hilarious!  Check it out.

http://www.depoman.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18960

[Debbie]

LOL, Kerry, if it is the same one I am thinking about, I am one of those involved in that out of control discussion on DepoMan.  It got so personal against me that I personally asked Mike to lock the thread.

I just looked and it's not the same thread.  The one I am talking about is the locked thread with the National Ban Poll title.

The folks in Tennessee are anxiously watching the development of the Magna case.

[Kerry F]

Debbie, it's the thread where someone says "do you really think it's wise to start this again."

And someone else says, "where's your sense of adventure?"

[Martha R]

I have read that thread and I will say it takes two to tango.

[Amanda Leigh]

That is very true.

[Martha R]

These big firms don't want any ethics to get in the way of making their money.   I know those who work for these contracting firms will disagree, hence all the arguments online.

[April Davis]

There will always be big firms that do this.  We don't have to agree with it, but we do have to accept that fact of life.  We all have the choice to live by our own principles and not work for them.  That's a choice that I have personally made.  That isn't necessarily a choice that everyone can or will make.  We can't control what others do.  I found the depoman thread pretty funny though.  This isn't a whole lot different than what a lot of big businesses do.  Look at Walmart, for example.  Low prices, pay their employees poorly, put smaller stores out of business.  I find it pretty distasteful, so I choose not to shop there.  It seems like a common business model I suppose

[Bill Parsons]

In addition to the Depoman discussion on contracting, there's additional discussion on the topic at the Netscape Court Reporter Forum which is also called the CompuServe court reporter forum.

Check it out. 

http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-crforum&...=

Bill

[Bill Parsons]

Hi All,

 

Here's link to the Amended Complaint in the Magna Legal Services, LLC vs. State of Arizona ex rel Board of Certified Reporters.

 

Go to http://bit.ly/ZHJsh3

 

Best Regards, Bill