Taking an In-Depth Look at Court Reporting

An effective stenographer is a necessity in an organization that requires accuracy and keen listening skills. Different states refer to these people with different terms such as court, shorthand, or law reporters, but they all mean the same thing.

Stenographers or court reporters handle the difficult job of transcribing every speech or written communication happening inside the courtroom. The nature of the job requires specialized skill sets and training.

The demands of the position are something many people are unwilling to take on. It takes an extraordinary amount of patience and skill to come closer to the basic requirement for the job. This is the reason law firms and federal agencies go to lengths to make sure they hire the right people for the job. This also makes the business of providing court reporting and stenography service a profitable industry.

Court reporters are some of the most competent people in the business. This is mostly because they are required to perfect their craft through years of training. Traditional stenotype court reporters are highly popular, but the market has grown to include those specializing in voice stenography. The difference is the amount of time spent in acquiring the basic court reporting skill. It takes around two to four years for stenographers to complete their training while voice reporters only need around six months to one year to complete theirs.

Evolving Technologies

In an industry as competitive as stenography, introducing new and better ways to get the job done is necessary. Many court reporting companies now use video technology to record and save legal proceedings on disks for easy reference. It also helps minimize errors and omissions as the video can be played repeatedly to collect the most comprehensive and accurate information for transcription.

Developing litigation support software has also helped make the transcription process less tedious. Litigation support software makes it easy to make revisions or add annotations to any transcripts. It also makes sharing the information more efficient.

Transcription Services Made Easy

Technology has significantly improved transcription management. The availability of different software that can save, print, and search for transcripts in a given database is a welcome convenience. With these technologies, the time needed to complete transcription and data transmission is shorter. This allows everyone involved in the legal process to get the job done in half the time.

With many companies providing the same transcription service, it all boils down to the add-ons you receive. It is important to look into what else you are getting in addition to basic transcription.

Understanding Wrongful Termination Law

There is no getting around the fact that Arizona employment laws are generally quite friendly to employers when it comes to a question of wrongful termination. Many Arizona employment lawyers frequently recount the truism that an employee may be filed for a good reason or for no reason whatsoever, as long as he isn’t fired for a bad reason.

The bad reasons are what keep plaintiffs’ attorneys in business. Although every case is different and recently terminated employees should consult with an employment attorney to discuss the specific circumstances of their case, unlawful reasons for terminating an employee include termination decisions based on the race, sex, religion or age of the employee.

Arizona also has a statute prohibiting termination as retaliation for reporting a violation of an Arizona statute. There are many other similar state and federal laws that preclude termination in retaliation for an employee’s lawful reporting of the employer’s actual or suspected violation of the relevant law. These retaliation statutes may create liability where the employer wasn’t even guilty of the underlying offense, so employers should be very careful about making a decision to terminate an employee who has complained of or reported any sort of discrimination, safety violation, or other legal issue. Arizona employers who believe they need to fire such an employee should consult with an Arizona employment lawyer first.

Employees who believe they have valid wrongful termination claims should seek the advice of an Arizona employment attorney as soon as possible, because the statutes of limitation pertaining to both state and federal law violations are relatively short, and the failure to file a complaint in Court or with the appropriate administrative agency is usually fatal to a wrongfully terminated employee’s claim.

An Arizona employment lawyer will also be able to help the terminated employee understand his or her obligations and rights. Among other things, terminated employees must mitigate their damages by seeking replacement employment. Where an employer is liable, the employee will normally be entitled to recover lost wages and other damages directly related to the termination.

Health Care Reform: The Employer Mandate and Reporting Requirements

Many employers remain confused about health care reform, and how their business will be impacted. One of the most important parts of the law is the employer’s “shared responsibility” role, in which employers are required to provide affordable health insurance coverage to their staff. However, “this pay-or-play” mandate has been postponed, providing employers more time to understand and comply with the law.

Reporting Requirements

Employers and other reporting entities will be provided additional time to provide input and feedback on ways to simplify information reporting, while remaining consistent with the law. Known as “transition relief”, it is intended to provide employers, insurers, and other providers of minimum essential coverage time to adapt their health coverage and reporting systems.

In anticipation of the application of the provisions in 2015, however, the IRS encourages employers to voluntarily comply for 2014 with these information-reporting provisions (once the information reporting rules have been issued) and to maintain or expand health coverage to all full-time employees in 2014.

Employer Mandate (employers defined as “large” by the ACA)

No “Employer Shared Responsibility” penalties will be assessed for 2014 (the piece of the law requiring employers to provide all employees with affordable coverage). Large employers who do not offer coverage or who offer coverage that does not meet the ACA’s definition of affordable will not be penalized in 2014. However, these employers need to be ready to comply for 2015.

Individual Mandate

The individual requirement, which is effective January, 1, 2014, has not been delayed. Under the individual requirement, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to carry health insurance or pay a penalty tax. It is expected that the set-up and operation of the new insurance marketplace, called “The Exchange,” will continue in each state.

Premium Credits through the Exchange

The delay does not affect the availability of premium credits for individuals eligible for federal subsidies. Individuals will continue to be eligible for the premium tax credit by enrolling in a qualified health plan through the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (also called Health Insurance Marketplaces), if:

a) Their household income is within a specified range; and,

b) They are not eligible for other minimum essential coverage, including an eligible employer-sponsored plan that is affordable and provides minimum value.

Benefits eligibility for full-time employees/Hours Tracking

The ACA defines a full-time employee, for the purpose of benefits eligibility, to be one working an average of 30+ hours per week. Due to the delay of the employer mandate, employers will not be required to comply with this definition in 2014. There is no need for employers to track hours in 2013 to determine eligibility for 2014, or to decide on a measurement, administrative, and stability period.

Maximum waiting period

The delay does not affect the maximum waiting period rules effective January 1, 2014. The ACA requires that an employer must not have a waiting period that is longer than 90 days. Note that some states, such as California, may have more stringent laws.

Although the two items being delayed are significant, we recommend that employers continue their diligence with understanding and preparing for the implementation of Health Care Reform provisions in 2014, through 2020.