What kinds of conflicts of interest should a court reporter avoid?

It's pretty obvious why a court reporter would be required to be a neutral, third-party observer to a proceeding, but where in the code specifically are the duties spelled out as far as avoiding conflicts of interest?

I'm in California.

Well, first I'd say a reporter should avoid ALL kinds of potential conflicts of interest.  And you're right it is obvious why the reporter needs to be neutral.  Can you imagine if the reporter was the wife of the opposing counsel? Or was impartially giving gifts (kick backs) to one side or another?  (Oh, wait don't get me started on gift giving, which is unfortunately rampant in the industry.)

Back to your question about where in the code the conflict of interest language exists:

sec. 2025.320(a) “the officer shall not be financially interested in the action and shall not be a relative or employee of any attorney of the parties, or of any of the parties.”

Yes, we have to be impartial, and it's often kind of a funny dance we do in determining when we have to recuse ourselves.   Here's what I've done so far.

I have been active in the areas of animal rights and the environment, and I try to stay tuned and be honest about what I reasonably can and rightfully should not do.  Yes, I have reported cases involving allleged animal abuse and managed to stay impartial -- we do, after all, work in a system where the defendants are innocent until proven guilty.  However, I believe I would need to recuse myself  in cases where an organization I belonged to was a party to the action.  I would not volunteer my court reporting services for any group I belong to or support (FWIW, never heard of a nonprofit that can't use clerical help or donations of office supplies). 

I used to publish an animal-rights newsletter.  This was way before I was a court reporter.  Its primary focus was public education and spearheading  letter-writing campaigns pertaining to legislation to protect animals and also to ask companies involved in cruel practices to cease and desist.  I would not report a case involving parties addressed in these campaigns.  If I attended a demonstration against a certain entity, I don't think I should be the reporter if it were a party in a particular action.  Simply, it just doesn't look good.  Our standards instruct us to avoid even the appearance of harm, and I think that would be one of those times.  And what if one of the parties should recognize my face or name?

If grey areas came up -- and they have -- the only WTG is full disclosure to all sides.  For example, two people I used to work with when I did CART work wound up suing each other, and I was the reporter.  I promptly divulged this info and unhesititatingly submitted myself to questioning by counsel for both sides.  I didn't know a  thing about the issues to hand, and we proceeded without incident.  Another time, I was reporting in court when I recognized the name of a prospective juror.  We didn't have a relationship except that I had been the reporter for two lengthy hearings involving her divorce.  I really did know a lot about her, and I decided that the judge should be the one to decide whether I knew too much.  He said it was okay for me to report the voir dire (jury questioning).  When the panel was seated, it was obvious from her facial expression that she recognized me.  And I knew I'd done right by asking the judge about it because what if she'd answered yes to the scattershot question about being acquainted with court staff?  Shudder. 

BTW, good question.

Blessings, Cathryn