The Unsworn Statement and the Missing Oath
You are transcribing a 38-minute recorded small-claims proceeding. The recording opens mid-sentence; there is no audible administration of an oath or affirmation to the parties. The claimant then gives a narrative account of a $3,200 unpaid invoice. Near the end, the judge says, "I'll take that as your testimony under the affirmation you gave the clerk earlier." Your transcript template includes a standard header line reading "[Witness duly sworn]" that your predecessor typically inserted at the start of testimony. The supervising attorney asks you to "just use the standard header so it looks complete."
1. Should you insert the standard "[Witness duly sworn]" header? Explain your reasoning.
Read the worked answer
No. Inserting "[Witness duly sworn]" would assert a fact not established by the recording at that point - the oath, if any, was administered off-record. Fabricating a procedural header to make the document "look complete" is a misrepresentation of the record, even if the judge's later remark suggests an affirmation occurred. Instead, transcribe exactly what is audible, and where the recording begins mid-sentence, mark it: [recording begins mid-proceeding; oath/affirmation not captured on this recording]. You may add a neutral note citing the judge's later statement verbatim at its timestamp, without converting it into a header claim.
2. How do you respond to the supervising attorney's instruction while remaining professional?
Read the worked answer
Respond factually and without accusation: explain that the recording does not capture an oath, that the judge's remark at the end references an affirmation given earlier to the clerk, and that inserting the standard header would state something the audio does not support. Offer alternatives: (1) a bracketed note describing the gap, (2) a note quoting the judge's remark at its timestamp, or (3) if the attorney has independent confirmation (e.g., clerk's record), the attorney can direct a specific, sourced notation. Frame it as protecting the firm: an inaccurate procedural header is the kind of defect opposing counsel can exploit. Defer to the attorney on wording but not on inserting an unsupported factual claim.