|
By Shirley Houston, CSR, RPR, CLVS, FAPR For those who are not familiar with the purpose of the Court Reporters Certification Board, it is as follows: - Test applicants and certify to the Supreme Court of Texas those candidates who qualify to be CSRs. - Reprimand, suspend, or revoke the certification of licensees whose actions do not meet the highest standards of ethical conduct. - Sanction court reporters found guilty of unprofessional conduct, fraud, dishonesty, willful violation of duty or incompetence. Most of the reporters were present that day to listen to arguments for and against the 1/3 Rule. We were soon to find that first on the agenda was to hear grievances that had been filed against reporters, so we heard those complaints for the first few hours. We heard discussion, consideration, and possible action on three (3) applicants having been convicted of a criminal offense. We later heard discussion, consideration, and possible action on preliminary review of eleven (11) reporters brought before the CRCB. Some were frivolous complaints against reporters. Some had more serious consequences. If it were proven that a CSR had not followed the rules, it could be ruled that he/she had to go through a formal hearing where his/her license could be revoked or suspended. The firms are equally accountable for wrongdoing and can lose their right to have a firm in Texas. Rumor had it around the state that the CRCB was lenient on those who didn’t follow the rules. As for my firm, we chose to be conservative and follow the rules, regardless of whether or not the CRCB was lenient. After having watched the Board and finding that it is a no-nonsense Board, I’M ALL SHOOK UP wondering how many have not followed the rules that should have been followed or are just lucky enough to have not been discovered. There was one grievance that was of particular interest to many of us that day. That was concerning the delivery of rough ASCIIs. Here is the sequence of events: (1) The reporter took a deposition. (2) The secretary/legal assistant called her and said they needed a rough ASCII before the transcript was completed. (3) The secretary/legal assistant told the reporter if she delivered it to her firm, the firm would deliver to the other attorney. (4) The reporter thought both attorneys would have the rough ASCII. (5) The attorney ordering the rough ASCII was actually only giving the rough ASCII to the attorney for the witness and not the opposing attorney. (6) This left the opposing attorney without a rough ASCII. When he discovered he had not been offered the opportunity to get a rough ASCII at the same time the other attorneys got a rough ASCII, he filed a grievance against the reporter. I knew the reporter that was brought before the Board and knew her to be a conscientious and ethical reporter. I just assumed the Board would tell her that she should not have given a rough ASCII to one side without notifying the other and to not do it again. In Section 52.034 of the Government Code, it specifically states as follows: - A court reporter may not enter into or provide services under any contractual agreement, written or oral, exclusive or nonexclusive, that (3) requires a court reporter to provide any service not made available to all parties to an action; or (4) gives or appears to give an exclusive advantage to any party. The Board voted to dismiss this, but only after the reporter was reprimanded. What really caused me to say I’M ALL SHOOK UP is that the vote was very close. The reporter almost had to go through a full hearing, where the reporter’s license could have been revoked. I talked to many reporters that day, and WE WERE ALL SHOOK UP because we realized how easy it would be to lose our license by lack of proper documentation. We must all remember that we should give all parties in the lawsuit equal opportunity. This does not mean to GIVE it to people who have bad credit. We must notify them and ask if they want it and tell them the credit arrangements. And document, document, document if they say they don’t want it. And document, document, document that you offered it to them. Otherwise, it’s your word against the attorney’s. The time had finally arrived to hear arguments for and against the 1/3 rule. The 1/3 Rule means that all CSRs in Texas are to charge no more than 1/3 of the Original Deposition charge for the copy. For example, if the page rate for an 0 & 1 is $3.00, then each copy should be no more than $1.00. (The Original & 1 copy is counted as the Original because there is a minimum charge.) I was particularly interested in this rule because an anonymous flyer had been sent out giving misleading information. Part of this information they gave came from a survey funded by the National Court Reporters Foundation. I had been Chair of the National Court Reporters Foundation and just happened to have a copy of that survey they had quoted. This flyer tried to convince the reporters of Texas that Texas CSRs were making less per page for the copy. What they forgot to mention in the flyer was that Texas reporters were making a lot more for the original. Adding the original and copy, the Texas reporters were ahead of the national average. The best rule of thumb is to NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING PUT OUT ANONYMOUSLY. It is important also to know what the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) and the Texas Court Reporters Association (TCRA) believe is best before making any decisions. SPEAKERS FOR KEEPING THE 1/3 Rule were: Melissa Carson - TCRA President, CSR, RPR Bill Carroll - Past President of TCRA and Past Member of the CRCB, CSR Jerry Callaway - Past President of TCRA and Past Member of the CRCB, CSR, RDR, CRR, CPE. Judy Hobart - Past President of TCRA and President of Citizens for Impartial Justice, CSR, RPR Judy Werlinger - Past President of TCRA and Director of the NCRA, CSR, FAPR, RMR, CRR, CMRS Dale Guedry - Partner with Collins, Miller, Guedry & High - Dallas, CSR Stephanie McClure - Independent Contractor Reporter- Houston, CSR, RPR, CART LEVEL IV Gene Lee - Official Court Reporter, San Marcos, Texas, CSR Nell McCallum Morris - Owner of Nell McCallum & Associates - Houston/Beaumont SPEAKERS FOR CHANGING THE 1/3 Rule: Art Richardson - Area President for LegaLink, Houston, CSR, CM Rene White - Independent Contractor, Esquire Deposition Services - Houston, CSR. RPR, CRR Lori Islet - General Manager, Esquire Deposition Services - Houston Karen Bright - Executive Vice President, Chief of Operations and Administration, Esquire Deposition Services/DepoNet – New Jersey Lorree Castile - Operations Manager for Esquire Deposition Services - San Antonio Cherie Kell - CMRS, U. S. Legal Support, General Manager - Houston The speakers had expressed their opinions, and the CRCB voted. What would the answer be? We all waited anxiously to see. All board members voted, with the exception of one who had recused herself. The vote was unanimous to keep the 1/3 Rule. It was impressive to me that day that, regardless of what side of the fence each reporter was on, that they respected the opinions of the other side. Future meetings of CRCB, Government Code, and Uniform Format Manual can be viewed on the website at www.crcb.state.tx.us/geninfo.htm. (Back to Table of Contents) |