CER Certified Electronic Reporter common mistakes
CER Certified Electronic Reporter · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Starting the proceeding with only one active recording path - a single microphone, a single recorder, or a single storage medium - and never confirming a working backup before the first question is asked.
Candidates study microphone types and file formats in isolation and treat redundancy as an optional 'nice to have'; under exam time pressure they assume the venue's installed system is already fault-tolerant instead of verifying it.
What to do instead
Adopt a pre-session checklist that must be walked through out loud or in writing: primary and secondary recorder both armed and running, independent microphone or backup channel confirmed on the meters, fresh or mains-backed power, and a bench test played back before going on the record. Treat 'backup verified' as a required step, not a preference.
Setting levels once at the start of the session and then never watching the meters, so that a soft-spoken witness or a speaker who leans away produces an unusable track that is only discovered at transcription time.
Candidates equate 'recording is running' with 'recording is good' and focus attention on the speakers rather than the equipment display; level drift is invisible unless actively monitored.
What to do instead
Build in periodic meter checks at natural breaks and whenever a new speaker begins, and know the corrective actions in order (adjust gain, reposition or re-aim the microphone, request the speaker project or repeat). Verbally confirm audibility of a new speaker on the record when the setup changes.
Recording the proceeding without creating a contemporaneous log or time-stamp notes, then trying to reconstruct speaker identities, spellings and exhibit references from memory during transcription.
Candidates believe the audio file is self-explanatory and underestimate how ambiguous an unattributed voice or an unstated spelling becomes hours later; they also fear that note-taking will distract them from monitoring.
What to do instead
Maintain a running log keyed to the recorder's time display: speaker name, spellings confirmed on the record, exhibit numbers and markings, interruptions, and start/stop points. Note-takers should write in short, timestamped fragments that another reader could follow, and confirm any proper name or figure on the record before moving on.
Handling an instruction to go 'off the record' by simply stopping the recording (or by continuing to record) without confirming the instruction on the record and without noting the time of the stop and restart.
Candidates memorize the phrase 'off the record' but not the procedural mechanics around it, and they assume the presiding officer's casual remark is a sufficient direction.
What to do instead
Treat off-the-record status as a procedural event: acknowledge the instruction, state the time and that recording is being suspended, stop, and on resumption state the time and that recording has resumed. If the direction is ambiguous or comes from someone not authorized to give it, seek clarification on the record before acting.
Failing to place the essential opening particulars on the record - date, time, location, identity of the presiding officer, appearances of counsel and parties, the witness's identity, and the administration of the oath or affirmation.
Candidates treat these as clerical formalities handled by someone else, or assume the audio itself proves who was present; the exam rewards knowledge of the required elements, not assumptions.
What to do instead
Work from a fixed opening script that captures each required particular in sequence, and verify names and spellings with the participants rather than guessing. Know which elements the reporter is responsible for stating and which are the presiding officer's, and prompt for any that are missing.
Guessing at an unclear word, name or number and writing it into the transcript as if it were clear, rather than marking it as indistinct or unverified and following up.
Candidates want a clean-looking transcript and believe a plausible guess reads better than a bracketed flag; they also fear that too many unclear markings will look like poor equipment practice.
What to do instead
Apply the marking convention consistently: flag anything not heard with certainty, preserve the speaker's actual words including false starts and repetitions, and resolve ambiguities through the record, the log, or a documented read-back - never through silent invention. Verify that every flagged item has been either resolved or left flagged in the final product.
Producing a transcript whose pages omit or misapply standard formatting requirements - inconsistent speaker identification, missing or misnumbered page and line references, incorrect question-and-answer layout, or an incomplete certification page.
Candidates focus on getting the words right and treat layout as cosmetic, and they may never have compared their output against the required page format in detail.
What to do instead
Work from a template whose paragraph styles already enforce the required layout, and run a page-by-page check of speaker tags, numbering continuity, exhibit references and the certificate before delivery. Read the certificate wording against the required form word for word rather than from memory.
Discussing the substance of a proceeding, sharing a file, or leaving recordings and transcripts accessible to people with no right to them, including in casual conversation with a colleague or on personal cloud storage.
Candidates treat confidentiality as a rule about formal disclosure and do not recognize informal chat, unsecured storage and convenience-based file sharing as the same breach; convenience usually wins when no policy is in view.
What to do instead
Apply a default-deny rule: discuss case content only with those entitled to it, use only approved encrypted storage and transfer methods, keep physical media secured, and treat any request for a copy as requiring verification of entitlement before release. When in doubt, do not disclose; escalate.
Treating the original recording and its metadata as disposable once a transcript exists - overwriting, editing, or discarding source audio without preserving it for the required retention period.
Candidates see the transcript as the product and the audio as a working file, and they underestimate that the unaltered original is the contemporaneous record and may be required later.
What to do instead
Preserve the original, unedited files with their metadata and a documented chain of custody, make any working copies separately, and know the applicable retention period and destruction rules. Never alter or re-save an original; annotate corrections in the transcript or in a separate log.
Confusing participant roles and procedural terminology - for example mixing up who may object and when, what a sidebar or chambers conference is, or which stage of examination a question belongs to - and mislabeling the record accordingly.
Candidates learn vocabulary as isolated definitions rather than as a sequence of events, so the terms fail to attach to what is actually happening in the room.
What to do instead
Learn procedure as an ordered script (opening, appearances, oath, direct, cross, redirect, re-cross, objections, offers of proof, closing, adjournment) and map each term to the moment it occurs. When a stage or role is unclear during a session, ask for it to be clarified on the record rather than labeling it from guesswork.