The Colleague Who Wants a Favor
You are a certified court reporter in Arkansas. A court reporter friend, Dana, is covering a hearing you usually cover. Dana's transcript is due in five days and she is behind. She asks you to 'take a quick look' at her rough draft and 'clean it up' so she can certify it on time. She offers to pay you $400. You know Dana's certification will be on the transcript, and you know that whoever prepares the transcript is responsible for its accuracy. You also know that the hearing involved a disputed oral contract and that a key passage is garbled in her draft. You have not listened to the audio. Dana says the audio is fine and she just needs the draft polished.
1. Identify the ethical issues in accepting Dana's offer as framed.
Read the worked answer
Accepting would put you in the position of materially contributing to a transcript you did not prepare and cannot verify, while Dana certifies it. The certification is Dana's representation that the transcript is accurate; if you 'clean up' a garbled key passage without listening to the audio, you are guessing at testimony and lending your skill to an unverified product. The payment arrangement also creates an incentive to rubber-stamp. The core problem is that the person certifying must be the person responsible for accuracy, and the division of labor here obscures that. The garbled passage on a disputed oral contract is precisely where guessing is most dangerous.
2. Dana proposes an alternative: you listen to the audio for the garbled passage only, fix that passage, and she certifies the rest. Is that acceptable, and what conditions would make it defensible?
Read the worked answer
It is closer to acceptable but still requires care. If you actually listen to the audio for the garbled passage and correct it against the audio, you are doing verification, not guessing. Conditions: (1) you verify the passage against the audio, not against Dana's memory; (2) Dana reviews and accepts the correction and remains the certifying reporter responsible for the whole transcript; (3) the arrangement is disclosed to no one improperly, but the work is documented so the correction is traceable; (4) you do not certify anything you did not verify. The cleaner path is for Dana to do the audio check herself or to seek an extension; assisting with verification is defensible, but the certification must remain honestly Dana's.
3. What should you tell Dana about the deadline pressure?
Read the worked answer
Tell her the deadline does not justify an unverified certification. The right moves are to request an extension from the court, to prioritize the disputed passage for audio verification, and to certify only what she can stand behind. A late but accurate transcript is recoverable; a certified transcript with guessed testimony is not. Offer to help her verify the garbled passage against the audio if she wants, on the conditions above, but decline to polish a draft you cannot verify.