Tips on cleaning up attorneys?

Vote this down

The answer with the most votes is considered to be the best. Disagree? Vote for your favorite answer below.

This is a highly debated topic. My opinion is there is a time to clean and a time to not clean. If it's video, no cleaning. It is what it is minus the "uhs" and "ums."

If it's NOT video:

If the attorney gets two or three words out and then stutters or says those same exact words again, or stumbles in the middle of a sentence and says the same word twice, I clean it up. If the attorney says maybe four or more words and repeats those words, I would dash it and leave it in. That's too much to take the liberty of taking out.

If the attorney starts one direction, stops, then goes a different direction with different words, I dash it and leave it in no matter how many words he/she got out.

I don't clean up the witness.

I'm taking cover now because, like I said, this is highly debatable and may get some passionate responses to the contrary. :) Okay. I'm ready.

It also depends on who the client is. If it's someone you're familiar with, you don't even write the beginning of their sentences because they're all over the place, then it's not an issue in the transcript. - jcourtreporter 7/18/2010 12:04:42 AM | Flag

I totally agree with cmbeiling. What I do when they're going off on a rabbit trail that has absolutely nothing to do with the depo at hand, I just nonchalantly raise my hands away from my machine. Often times attorneys appreciate this as it makes them aware of what is or is not going on the record. Sometimes they'll look at me with my hands up and say, Oh, yeah. We definitely don't need this on the record. I did have a witness once question why some short conversation she had with the attorneys where she didn't notice my hands were up, but she remembered the conversation. She called me and I had to explain to her that her attorney was well aware when my hands were not on the machine and that that conversation was had during that time. Attorneys pay attention to the reporter's hands where witnesses do not. Just seems to clarify, as far as the reporter goes, what is or is not in the record. - LKBragg 7/19/2010 8:42:28 AM | Flag

Answered by Lisamarie127 {32}
7/16/2010 1:42:59 PM

[1 Votes]

Vote this down

I've been reporting for about 20 years, and I agree there is a time to clean and a time not to clean. I think cmbeiling described certain situations very well in their response. Jeanese is also correct in cutting an attorney a little slack now and then because everyone is human and needs to formulate their thoughts. However, never take the liberty of cleaning someone up if it's going to affect the content ... meaning changing direction in their thoughts because that should always be left in. It's also different if you're captioning or just writing from a video ... everything is left in, no matter how off-color it may seem to us. We are impartial reporters of the spoken word ... it's up to the speakers to watch what they say. ;)

Answered by jillybean {75}
7/18/2010 10:12:49 AM

[1 Votes]

Vote this down

My concern with cleaning up the the attorney and not the witness is that with the little digital recorders we have these days, it would be so easy for someone to be taping and me not know it and then come back later and show that I did not produce a verbatim transcript or, worse, showed favoritism. Anyway, so many of my depos are video these days, that it's just habit for me to put everything in.

Answered by jeanese {2363}
7/16/2010 1:50:30 AM

[0 Votes]

I feel the same way as cmbeiling. In your example of your atty, sounds like, unfortunately, that's the way they speak and cleaning wouldn't help much. Every case is different. I always take into consideration readability and of course just being human...lol! Attys are human, too! There are times when it's appropriate to just cut them a little slack and clean meaningless stutters and stammers where they are simply formulating their thought or question. Even on video, I will clean micro insignificant utterances and definitely leave out off-color jokes... I don't know. It's something ingrained in me - I simply cannot write when someone says, *Hey, Bob, can we take a break? That iced-tea I had at lunch is really running through me and I need to hit the head.* (I actually had someone say this) I freeze up...lol! I may or may not use (off record comment) blurb... just, again, depends on the situation.

I couldn't agree more... I had the non-taking attorney recently point out that I was not taking down everything that was said. Then promptly started a conversation that I was taking down and was DISMAYED! I pointed out you can't have it both ways! - jcourtreporter 7/18/2010 12:19:14 AM | Flag

Right. Every case is different. You must have been on realtime, no? Poor Kortrorper who asked the question is probably thouroughly confused now by all of our responses, which there's really no wrong or right. It's just style. I will say, though, Kortroper, there is a vast difference in court from depo. If you're in court, I would follow the Facebook group. Depos are a different atmosphere. Totally. I've had attys look over at me and say, *That isn't on the record, right?* And I will reply, *No. I stopped at the comment about Bill's mother's butt is... or Atty Steve's leaving on vacation next week* Or, *How about those Redsocks? Lookin' great this year, huh, Chuck?* We are not tape-recorders. Verbatim is fine and well, but there's a subtle mixture of human intelligence that applies in SOME situations. And now taking cover with cmbeiling - I've read other blogs where the duty of verbatim, in my opinion only, seems over-interpreted. For instance, one comment I read where the reporter would put out his final transcript with *two-oh-oh-four* if that's what the person said. That, to me, is silliness! Obviously, it calls for a year - 2004. That's what will be in my transcript. Saying *I did it this way because I must adhere to the duty of being verbatim isn't persuasive enough for me when attys are paying thousands of dollars for the finished product to win and/or lose million-dollar cases - In my opinion, it reflects bad on us. I always report *defensively* as well, knowing Judges and Arbitrators and Attys will be reading the transcript. They're simply going to criticize the skill and education level of the reporter in the end. - jeanese 7/18/2010 1:23:33 AM | Flag

I was an official myself for 15 years for a very notorious outspoken judge. Needless to say, some things are better left unsaid (written.) Of course, not in a trial, appealable setting :) - jcourtreporter 7/18/2010 1:35:17 AM | Flag

Answered by debeemartin {193}
7/18/2010 10:00:33 PM

[0 Votes]

Hey,

If I am 100% sure I'm right, I'll clean up my clients. They love it, and they aren't under oath. I do it for the attorneys who aren't my clients, too, because I'm neutral. So, if anyone ever did want to check the tape, the witness' testimony would be perfect, and, if I did clean them up, that would be all they would find after listening to the tape.

In Florida, people are casual, and they cut up in the depos. So, when I know they're cutting up and don't want it on the record, I just cover myself and put (discussion off record) so they'll know I just didn't leave something out.

I've done it 29 years, and you learn so much as you go along, you will know what I'm saying soon enough. One of my client's gets a twinkle in his eye when he's about to be funny, and I just don't even write it. Sometimes he'll look over at me to see if I'm writing it, and I tell him that I saw that twinkle in his eye. That to me means a tiny break.

If it is a false start or three okays and an all right before the false start on an attorney, I leave it out. I correct their grammar, too.

If I am not 100% sure I'm right, I put what they said. The school I graduated from is closed now, but I was taught that we should clean up the attorneys since they are not under oath.

Good luck, Carol

We were also taught attys and experts - slight cleaning, if necessary, of course. Not just on GP! lol! I never thought about the under oath part before, but that's a good point. I've only cleaned grammar a handful of times in an 11+ year career where there was just no other way out of it...lol! So they're big jokesters in FL, huh? Sounds fun! - jeanese 7/20/2010 1:44:36 AM | Flag