Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
The Court Reporter Conference 2008
Share |
 Return to Top 





For Professionals in Electronic / Digital Court Technology

Volume 13, Number 2 — Conference 2008 . . .






A Judicial Perspective on Electronic Reporting

— The Hon. Nancy F. Alley
      Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida
In another step toward the paperless court system, the electronic reporting system is here to stay.  There are positives and negatives to this system that judges deal with, but deal with it they must.

I point that out because one of the most prevalent issues is the systemic inertia of those who resist change.  Interestingly enough, that is not always an issue for judges; sometimes the attorneys are resisting anything new.  I know many attorneys who must have a copy of the case or statute from an expensive book, rather than Westlaw, Lexis, or other research tool.  While most of us have some computer skills, some professionals view the use of technology as the equivalent of typing their own pleading.  Well, who do you think is typing this article?  I am.  (I actually had one person say that they didn't want to be responsible for putting someone out of a job.)

I am currently assigned to the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court.  That division does Delinquency, Dependency and Probate.  The hearings and trials must be recorded, and we use electronic reporting.  To be honest, most of the time I don't even remember it is recording.  During breaks the recording continues unless we manually shut it off, so it can pick up comments that are not intended for open court.

The best use we make of the event is in motions for rehearing or exceptions to the General Magistrates' Findings and Recommendations.  Instead of the extended delay that a written transcript requires, we can just review the recording within minutes.  It reduces the attorneys' use of exceptions as a delay tactic and, in my opinion, is more accurate because we can also observe the demeanor, gestures, and vocal issues that often impact the credibility of the witnesses.  Obviously, this is a cost saving administratively, an environmental improvement as to paper use, and is faster.  Other motion hearings can be eliminated because of the review of the recording, such as motions for clarification.

Of course, there are negatives.  If a court reporter is in the courtroom, a quick readback of a few questions is easier to do.  Since I have a decent memory, I usually repeat questions if needed.  Also, no one is saying, "I didn't get that" or "I can only record one person at a time."  Ensuring sound quality or maintaining a complete recording could be a problem, which is why it is very important to have employees solely responsible for the recordings.  Power failures, computer glitches, or strange-noise issues are also random concerns — but remember, this can happen with a stenographer's equipment as well.
However, in a centralized electronic courtroom, the courtroom reporter monitoring the court remotely is still able to play back portions of testimony or other previously recorded matters into the courtroom.

Another advantage of the centralized electronic courtroom is that matters which were recorded in another courtroom can also be played back into my courtroom.  Recently we needed to take the testimony of a child outside the presence of the mother.  I had the mother exit the courtroom, we recorded the child's testimony, the child exited the courtroom, we brought the mother back into the courtroom, and the digital court reporter played the testimony back into the courtroom for the mother to hear.  We were then, of course, recording the mother listening to the child's testimony.

The biggest concern is our own inertia.  We don't want to, or feel frustrated, when asked to learn something new.  My job description did not include a knowledge of technology.  I personally find it interesting and efficient, but others in my profession do not.  Unfortunately, the power of the budget does not allow the court system to ignore technology when it comes to cost-saving measures.

My personal experience says that the positives outweigh the negatives.  But even if they didn't, the system is here to stay.

Judge Alley sits on Florida's Eighteenth Judicial Circuit bench.  She attended Villanova School of Law, and was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1983.  She was first elected to the Eighteenth Circuit in 1997.

A total of 24 Circuit and 19 County judges serve the Eighteenth, encompassing both Brevard and Seminole Counties.  More than 963,000 Floridians live within its jurisdiction.  Brevard is the home of the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.

The Circuit includes centrally monitored courtroom facilities, providing both audio and video systems to capture the record, and Judge Alley's remarks are understood to focus on that variant of E-Reporting used in her Division.



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



Mary (right) tells Susan (left) all about John.

    Hearsay, hearsay, hear all about it!
ur last issue explored experts' testimony:  the only class of witnesses who can regularly repeat in court what they've been told or what they think about the facts in a case — in short, a special form of permissible "opinion hearsay."  An ordinary mortal is not allowed to take the stand and recite what Mary said:  "Mary told me she saw John with a gun that night."

And why not?   Because it's quite possible that Mary doesn't like John and is more than happy to get him into heaps of trouble.  Only if Mary herself takes the stand and makes herself available for cross-examination by John's attorney could her "gun statement" go into the record — coming firsthand from her own mouth, in the first person:  "I saw John  .  .  ."  — not by Susan's un-testable secondhand report.  That's the general (anti-)hearsay rule.

A cornerstone of our jurisprudence:
If something cannot be tested,
it probably shouldn't be trusted

So, does this mean that all objections based on hearsay grounds will be sustained?  No.  Is there a way for Susan's hearsay "gun statement" to get into the record, even over objection?  Yes.  Consider this scenario:

Q.  Susan, what did Mary say she saw that night?
         MR. OBJECTS:  Objection; hearsay.
         MR. OFFERS:  Not offered for the truth, Your Honor.  It goes to state of mind.
         THE COURT:  Objection overruled.
Q.  What did Mary tell you?
A.  She told me John had a gun.
Q.  How did you feel when you heard that?
A.  Scared.
Q.  What were you afraid of?
A.  That John might come over.
Q.  So what did you do then?

Now, what went on in that exchange?
How in the world does Not offered for the truth suddenly make it okay for the "gun statement" to come into the record, although it's still hearsay?

  • The statement is clearly objectionable on hearsay grounds.

  • But Susan gets to say it anyway, because it is not offered to prove that John did, in true fact, have a gun, but only to show what Susan felt and thought when she heard that he had a gun — in short, her own state of mind at the time.

  • Now Susan can leave hearsay behind and tell the court what she herself did that night.

Thus, at least sometimes (and just like the experts) we can give hearsay testimony — proving the rule that all rules have exceptions.  Indeed, there are at least 35 areas where we can do so, some handed down in common law from simpler times, some recently created so our complex litigations can still ferret out the truth.  The rationale behind these exceptions is so justice may be done, or at least appear to be done.

You're probably familiar with a number of the other exceptions found in Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803, but some on the list are rarely invoked and deal with rather unusual considerations.  Here are a few of the less esoteric ones we encounter:

  • Business records.   Records normally and regularly kept for business purposes are considered to be trustworthy, but only when presented in court by their custodian.  A bookkeeper might be called to introduce a firm's financial statements, for example.  The bookkeeper need not have made all the entries, but must be able to declare that the records are standard within the firm and are authentic.

  • Recorded recollection.   Normally, we expect witnesses to testify from memory.  Complex technical, and financial matters are difficult to remember in great detail, so a witness who once had the information, but has now forgotten, and who kept notes or wrote a memo about it way back when it was still freshly in mind, can review that information to refresh her memory, and even read it into the record if necessary.

    A closely related exception is:

    Medical records.   Without this exception, few physicians would be able to testify about the condition of a patient they may have not seen for several years.

  • Public records / vital statistics, 

    and closely related information found in:

    Religious organization records,  such as a parish registry to demonstrate a birth or death date, or

    Family records,  such as an old Bible, to demonstrate family relationships.

  • Prior convictions.   There are limits here:  the judgment must be final, although it may be currently under appeal, and the conviction needs to have been for a crime normally punishable by significant jail time. 

Tricky situations can arise when someone's history, character, or reputation are involved, but in general:

  • Personal history.   One's own family members can say things such as "We all knew Tom took drugs."

  • Reputation.   One's associates or members of the community can say, "Tom is a great guy" or "Nobody trusts him at all."  Whether such statements carry much weight is a different matter.

In addition to those exceptions, there are also two exemptions from the rule:

    (1) a prior inconsistent statement made by the witness him- or herself, and

    (2) an admission made by an opposing party in the case. 
(See Rule 801(d).)

Statements made by absent witnesses

What about statements made by people who are no longer around to testify, and so cannot be confronted in cross-examination about what they said?  In criminal cases, it has been traditional that if the trial judge finds such a statement to be reliable, it could be considered.  However, this very week, on May 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court turned that principle on its head, overturning precedent by a highly unusual 9 to 0 vote, and saying in the Crawford v. Washington appeal:

"Admitting statements deemed reliable by a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation"
— a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

This new wrinkle in the rule means that prosecutors can use statements made by now-absent witnesses only if the person had been previously cross-examined by the defendant, such as at a prior deposition or in some previous trial.

* * *

Clearly, what hearsay is and what it isn't, both in the civil and criminal arenas, and who gets to say what and when, and about what, is in flux.  Although hardly an exhaustive review, these remarks are intended to help us become even more familiar and comfortable with the hearsay rule's underlying bases as we report and transcribe.



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



President's Message:

It's the product that counts

Court reporters are in the business of making a court record.
We're not there as paralegals, we rule on no objections or motions, we weigh no evidence, we find no facts and reach no conclusions, we counsel no attorneys or judges.

We're there to capture what people say in court.  Our goal is to preserve their words for subsequent review.  Historically, this implies transcription.

I love transcribing.  I love painstakingly working on a transcript and knowing that when it's filed, all speaker identifications, legal terminology, proper names and spellings are accurate.  I'm attached to transcripts.  I've been transcribing for years.  I'm a visual learner.  I love to read.  Written formats have a history of being stored over the long term; audio formats are more recent developments.  I hope transcripts are required in many venues for a long, long time.

I love court reporting.  I want to be the one in the courtroom meticulously identifying each attorney, witness, proper name, and making sure a professional recording is made.  I hope court reporters stay in many courtrooms in this country and aren't removed from the process — like I was.

With each passing year in this field, the "won't let go" mentality of some in our industry comes into sharper focus.  Once understandable, that has now become incomprehensible to me.  If you don't believe you should let go of certain things, by all means defend them.  But, please, carefully weigh your thoughts and opinions regarding the future of the court record and the roles of transcribers and court reporters.  Now is the time to prepare for a future which may provide no other option than to "let go and move on."

As each industry evaluates its position in our ever-changing marketplace, impacted by technology and finances, a question must be faced:  "What business are we really in?"

Part of our business includes playing back portions of the record for court participants, as well as producing transcripts, CDs, and DVDs.  We provide long-term media storage and ensure the audio / video will be retrievable.  I think AAERT's members are in tune with court administrators across the country, because we have an understanding of the scope of their responsibility to archive the record and produce it in various forms.  Here at AAERT we have a keen appreciation for the melding of technology and duty.
We have voice-transcribers (voice-writers who transcribe from recorded audio), steno-transcribers (steno-writers who transcribe from recorded audio), transcribers using keystroke shortcuts to greatly speed up transcription, and court reporters using clerk and judicial assistant databases to customize daily dockets for courtrooms, to appropriately "tag" multiple courtrooms in a centralized court reporting environment.

We have court reporters who produce daily transcripts.  In fact, our associates in Australia, who have now formed their own association based on AAERT's example, produce transcripts at the end of each and every court day.  As court reporters responsible for the court records business, we must use the best solution for each situation.

As an analog court transcriber in the '90s, I was appalled to learn digital recording technology would soon make my costly analog equipment obsolete.  I was also fearful of what this unseen digital technology would bring.  It has been said that the only constant is change.  And I think change is solidly inconsistent — it always brings fresh fears, new challenges — and also unexpected opportunities.

A few years ago, NCRA also realized they needed to decide what business they were in.  As technology allowed for closed captioning and CART services, NCRA embraced these stenographers as court reporters — a kind of a hijacking of the phrase "court reporter," but a step they took to identify their fellow stenographers.  They, too, realize the importance of the court record and the fact there are other professionals besides stenographers, but they ardently represent the stenographers — which is their choice and right.  NCRA leadership regularly challenges its membership to use realtime and become realtime certified, as the only remaining frontier to separate them from E-Reporting.  According to their Blue Ocean Analysis, 13% of NCRA reporter members are certified realtime reporters.  Realtime is a valuable skill for many venues, but for many more venues is not the best solution, particularly in due process, low-transcript-volume environments.

We at AAERT also represent those responsible for a verbatim court record.  Instead of tiers of hierarchies, we have solutions of excellence.

I'm not sure what the future will hold.  I'm often uncomfortable with some of the hypothetical situations my overactive mind conjures.  But I do know that, as together we pursue excellence, all court reporters will be needed to produce and manage the court record.

Join us in San Antonio for our 15th Annual Convention!  Check out one of America's most famous and lovingly guarded forts, The Alamo — and while there, learn even more about our responsibility to produce, preserve, and guard the record.

After all, it's the product that counts, not the method.


  AAERT President



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT




Is your work killing you?
Two recent studies don't bring good news to .  .  .

1.   A stressful combo:

Carnegie Mellon and University of Utah researchers used functional MRI (fMRI) to watch brain activity as people attended to what someone was saying, while at the same time performing physical tasks.  The team found surprisingly steep declines in efficiency and coordination, and described the brain as taking "a neural hit" — significant biologic stress.

The 18 April 2008 issue of Brain Research explains that combining automatic tasks, such as speech comprehension, with a less-ingrained motor activity learned long after a person has grasped his native language, is a highly stressful combination.

They propose that's a reason why drivers, for example, who listen to talk radio (or even converse on hands-free cell phones) while in traffic have more accidents than those who listen to music only, or drive in silence.
  2.   Who would have thought?

British longitudinal studies* tracked the health of 18,000 civil servants, and found the highest rate of premature death is among — no, not the executives, managers, judges, or members of Parliament, but among workers who have little or no control over what is required / expected of them — or when they must perform their tasks, or for how long they must stay at them.

High rank, independent authority, or even extensive financial responsibilities showed a much weaker correlation to actual stress levels than was expected when the studies began thirty years ago.

Conclusion:   Workers who must maintain constant, intense, prolonged concentration, focusing on repetitive tasks immediately at hand, tasks which they cannot easily slow, stop, or change, have a significantly elevated risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke.

True, other factors also play their parts:  diet and smoking among them.  But the results are in, and the conclusions persuasive.

So what does this have to do with our profession? you wonder.  Think about it.     
* "Longitudinal" here means following the same subjects over a long period.  The studies described are commonly referred to as The Whitehall Studies I and II, begun in the 1970s.
See the 23 January 2008 issue of European Heart Journal.

Resurrecting ancient audio
math, physics, and chaos theory restore what had been given up as "lost"

In 1949 a music fan went to hear folk legend Woody Guthrie perform, and made a bootleg analog*  recording of the event.  This previously unknown piece of music history surfaced in 2001, fifty-two years later — alas, so badly damaged it was considered a sad and total loss.

But wait.

Mathematician Kevin Short (University of New Hampshire) and audio engineer James Howarth won this year's Grammy Award for best historical album because they performed a near-miracle:  they retrieved the "irretrievable" Guthrie performance, which is now available for all to enjoy.

How was this resuscitation accomplished?

Alongside intentionally recorded sounds, analog systems typically lay down a bias signal — a pure tone far beyond the range of human hearing.  This signal can become a reference against which other sounds can be mathematically compared.

(By the way, any steady background tone, even one produced by fluorescent lights in the room, can perform this reference function.  In the Guthrie case, the tone was found to be "hum" from an electrical line at 60 Hz.)

In an innovative approach (recently patented) using variable rate sampling instead of traditional sampling at regular intervals, coupled with the math subset known as chaos theory, the restoration team found structure in what had appeared to be mere "noise" — and voilà, Woody's original voice and music were revealed.

No one suggests a return to analog recording, now that more efficient and cost-effective digital systems are available and widely installed.  However, the old bugaboo of "forever lost" audio recordings has been turned on its head and can now be laid to rest.

You can hear the result of this work at
* "Analog" here refers to sound captured on magnetic tape or wire.  The 1949 exemplar was a wire recording.
   See the May 2008 issue of Scientific American.



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



The Nature of Words

I have a riotous display of fragrant rosemary in a sunny part of my yard that gets hot in summer and doesn't grow grass very well.  Several of the bushes produce vigorous vertical branches, and another variety has arching branches that drape gracefully toward the driveway and the street, forming a bank of greenery.  It's called prostrate rosemary, but when someone asks, I'm apt to tell them it's recumbent — I do like the alliteration.

Of course, then I pondered the difference between prostrate and recumbent.

Prostrate is derived from prostratus, participle of prosternere, to throw down proneProne is from pronus, turned or leaning forward, to lie face down, as opposed to supine, which is to lie face upward.  I don't know about you all, but the hint I learned in school to differentiate prone and supine is that when you're supine, you're lying on your spine.

Recumbent is derived from the participle of recumbere, to lie back, similar to cubare, to lie down.  Relatives of recumbent through cubare are cubicle, from the Latin cubiculum, bedroom; incubate, from incubare, to lie or recline on, to sit on, like a hen on eggs; and incumbent, from incumbere, to lie or lean upon.

A relation suprising to me is the cubit, originally a measure of the forearm from elbow to longest fingertip — cubitum means elbow in Latin.  Thus, the medical term for the crook of the arm from which blood is frequently drawn is the antecubital space.

Laurel H. Stoddard,  CET   (Austin, Texas)
On The Record Reporting & Transcription, Inc.   l



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



    FTR announces its new Gold 5.1:

We've invested in Gold . . . and it's paying off for you.

What's new in FTR Gold 5.1?   Here are just a few of its features:

  Microsoft Windows Vista® compatibility;

  A built-in CD-R and DVD-R optical disk-burning engine eliminates the need for third-party programs;

  Video capture;

  Consolidated interface for recording, note-taking, and playback;

  Spell-checker in Log Notes;

  Tabbed log sheets.


You're invited to come see the new FTR Gold and learn about its expanded feature set!

Where:   AAERT's Annual Conference in San Antonio

When:    Lunch & Learn, 11:45 am - 1:00 pm

Monday, June 23, 2008

For more information about FTR Gold 5.1, visit



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



  A continuing reminder:   Pengad offers a significant membership benefit.

AAERT members receive Pengad's lowest catalog pricing on most court reporting supplies, regardless of quantity.
This means we do not have to buy in bulk to save.

Just identify yourself as an AAERT member when ordering, and you automatically receive this consideration on your purchases of

  • Transcript covers

  • Laser supplies

  • Data accessories

  • Stock forms

  • Mailing supplies

  • Index tabs, and much more.

800 631-6989   —   fax 800 631-2329   —

Note:   Promotional items, billheads / invoices, business cards, flat or raised print stationery,
and printed mailing envelopes are not included in this benefit.



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



  Exhibitor Information on...

A new exhibitor at this year's conference in San Antonio is ErgoGenesis, manufacturer of BodyBilt seating.

BodyBilt chairs are renowned for their comfort, styling, and ergonomic adjustability.

Please click here for a downloadable brochure detailing the use of BodyBilt chairs in the courtroom.



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



Conference 2008, San Antonio — 22 - 24 June
Agenda page   Review the topics we will discuss and the events we will participate in together.
(And remember, continuing education credits will be available.)

Registration page   Until Monday, June 2, registration is $295, or $380 for yourself and spouse / partner.
Thereafter, registration will be $325, or $410 for yourself and spouse / partner.

San Antonio page   And take a look at just a small sample of the things San Antonio has to offer!

As your Conference co-chairs, we warmly invite you to Texas, and sincerely hope you will be able to attend.

Randel Raison, CET**D —
Margaret Morgan, CERT —

Or contact AAERT's Treasurer at
800.233.5306 (Pacific time)



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



Notice of 2008 Annual Business Meeting / Board Election

As our bylaws require, notice is hereby given to all AAERT members that
the Association's annual business meeting and Board election will be held at

3:45 p.m., Monday, June 23, 2008
El Tropicano Riverwalk Hotel
110 Lexington Avenue, San Antonio, Texas.

Click here for a downloadable / printable proxy form
Mail or fax your proxy so it arrives by Monday, June 16, 2008, at:

23812 Rock Circle
Bothell, Washington   98021-8573
fax (425) 481-9657

Proxy deadline:  Monday, June 16, 2008.
Two Board positions will be filled by election, and other Association business may be conducted.
The current board nominees are:

Karen Bergstrom, CERT — (Royal Palm Beach, Florida)

      Karen began transcribing in 1980 with Florida's 15th Judical Circuit.  She initially typed for stenographers and then, when analog equipment became available, began transcribing from audio recordings — now, of course, in digital format.  Karen owns KBS Services.  All three of her daughters have transcribed for the 15th Judical Circuit.  Karen received AAERT's Transcriber of the Year award in 2005.

Randel J. Raison, CET**D — (Houston, Texas)

      Randel is president of All Professionals Litigation Support Team, Inc. (APLST), which provides transcription and support for clients such as Citibank, Shell Oil, Pitney Bowes, CenterPoint Energy, and USA Today, both within and beyond Texas.  He has written papers concerning Internet issues and electronics in the legal profession, and received AAERT's 2007 Transcriber of the Year award.

Jared M. Sandel, CER**D — (Hollywood, Florida)

      Jared manages Florida operations for Continental Reporting Service, Inc., founded in 1981 and headquartered in Seattle.  CRS refers court reporting engagements to nearly 250 reporting firms nationwide, and in Florida has a significant focus on insurance-related issues and litigation.  Jared has co-drafted CRS's instructional and procedural manual for digital reporters and has trained a number of associates to work in this field.  He opened the Florida office in April 2007.



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



New Membership Benefits Announced in San Antonio

Dear AAERT Members:

Greg Smith and Associates is a full-service insurance brokerage and financial planning company.  We have been working with AAERT's officers to add additional membership benefits, and to increase the value of the association to its members.  We are proud to be presenting the first two benefits we have arranged at this year's annual convention.

We have secured the following discounted insurance programs, which we believe will help you immediately:

Professional Liability
is offered through Philadelphia Insurance Companies, specialists in Professional Liability insurance for a variety of professions.  They are offering AAERT members a 10% discount on Professional Liability policies.  These policies can also be packaged with General Liability, and the discount can be applied to both.

Disability and Business Overhead Expense
We have secured three discounted disability policies to fit any need or situation from three blue-chip insurance carriers.  These carriers will be offering discounts of up to 15% on these policies.

We will present these programs at Conference in San Antonio on Tuesday, June 24, at 1:00 p.m.  We will also discuss the need for these policies and what risks they can protect you against.  We look forward to seeing all of you!


P.S.  These programs are already in place, so there is no need to wait for the Conference itself!
Feel free to call me at (520) 615-6385 to discuss these plans or obtain a proposal.

Greg Smith and Associates
7530 North La Cholla Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona   85741



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



Newly Certified Members, April Examinations 2008

April 5th saw certification testing conducted in Middletown, Connecticut (near Hartford), and in Orlando, Florida.
Congratulations and our very best wishes to these candidates who earned their initial or upgraded certifications!

Sandra Aviles, CERT*D
Renee O. Bass, CERT*D
Janet M. Beason, CET**D
Tammy E. Crawford, CERT*D
Joelle H. Dixon, CERT*D
April Foga, CET**D
Alicia F. Jarrett, CET**D
Debra G. Jones, CET**D
Angela F. Karum, CET**D
Zandra L. Raines, CER**D
Jared M. Sandel, CER**D
Janet A. Smith, CER**D
Stratford, Connecticut
Crofton, Maryland
St. Augustine, Florida
Lawtey, Florida
Keystone Heights, Florida
Edgewater Park, New Jersey
Cleveland, Tennessee
Royal Palm Beach, Florida
Sanford, Florida
Ocala, Florida
Hollywood, Florida
Orlando, Florida

A general discussion of the program and a current schedule is at Certification Testing.

Steve Simon,  CERT
      Certification Chair



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



Pre-Certification Test Seminars

Mary Ann Lutz, CERT, of Lutz & Company in Monrovia, California, conducts two-day seminars in various cities around the country to prepare members to sit for AAERT's certification exams.  An examination immediately follows each seminar.

Dates and locations are included in the schedule posted at AAERT's Certification Test page .

You can review a PDF file detailing Lutz & Company's program by clicking here .

Contact Mary Ann at, or view the company's website at Lutz & Company .



AAERT     AAERT     Return to Top     AAERT     AAERT



A warm welcome to our new members
since the last issue of The Court Reporter

AAERT members can go to our on-line Directories by clicking here.


  Brian Christopher
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
Austin, Texas
April J. Foga, CET**D
Perfect Pages Transcription, Inc.
Edgewater Park, New Jersey
Amy Shankleton-Novess, CER 0838 (Michigan)
Modern Court Reporting, LLC
Saline, Michigan
  Patricia F. Acors, Virginia

Shawna L. Anderson, Texas

Janet M. Beason, Florida

Christopher Boone, Colorado

Pamela S. Buddenberg, Nebraska

Lisa N. Contreras, Maryland

Jo Lynn Dickinson, Ontario, Canada

Christine Eddy, California

Janet Evans-Watkins, Maryland

Ketelyn A. Frost, Michigan

Marie A. Gagliano, Florida

Melissa Garcia, Arizona

Suzanne M. Gustafson, Virginia

LaNell A. Haydon, Arizona

Sharon L. Holm, Florida

Jean Hudson, Maryland

Angela F. Karum, Florida

Kenneth J. Kelemen, Delaware

Cecelia Kelly, Illinois

Lisa Lake, Missouri

Michele M. Leinonen, Florida

Bethany J. Moore, New Hampshire

Jeanne K. Murie, North Dakota

Stacy E. Noeth, Florida

Melissa A. Odom, Florida

Amy Sarbaugh, Pennsylvania

Marsha D. Self, Virginia

Kim M. Stefka, Nebraska

Michelle L. Smirold, Maryland

Catherine A. Upchurch, Florida

Ilene M. Watson, Tennessee

Jo Elizabeth Wheat, South Carolina

Patricia D. Wtulich, North Carolina

Return to Table of Contents


Contact the Editor

The Court Reporter is published by
The American Association of Electronic Reporters & Transcribers, Inc.
All rights reserved, whether by electronic or print modalities.   © 2008.

Gillian Lawrence, FPR, CERT, President

AAERT   /   23812 Rock Circle   /   Bothell, WA 98021-8573.





Association Management Software Powered by®  ::  Legal