Cleaning It Up for a Rush Fee

Render it verbatim:

I ain't never signed nothing about no custody.

Reasoning:

• The exact words are the evidence. A family court may be weighing credibility, and the witness's actual phrasing is what counsel can impeach with or rely on. Substituting "I did not sign anything about custody" changes the speaker's voice and could be characterized as the reporter's characterization.
• No [sic] here. "[Sic]" is an editorial flag. Dropped into a witness's speech, it reads as the reporter's judgment about the speaker's education or truthfulness - an appearance of bias that costs you the neutrality you are certifying to.
• A double negative is not an unintelligibility. Your job is to reproduce it, not to resolve whether the witness meant what the grammar implies. If counsel wants to explore the double negative, that is counsel's examination.
• Spell it as spoken, keeping contractions and dropped g's only where your style guide requires. Consistency across the transcript matters more than any single choice.

The line between "cleaning up" and "reporting" is that formatting may be tidied; words may not be replaced.

Judge:

Mr. Alvarez, you will answer the question yes or no.

• Comma after "Mr. Alvarez." This is direct address; without the comma the sentence reads as though "Mr. Alvarez you will answer" is a title or a run-on. Direct address is set off by commas throughout the transcript.
• Capitalize "Mr." as a title preceding a name.
• No quotation marks around "yes or no." These are not quoted words; they are the two permitted answers. Quotation marks would suggest the judge was reading or quoting someone.

Counsel:

Let the record reflect the witness was shown what's been marked as Exhibit 12.

• Capitalize "Exhibit" because it identifies a specific marked exhibit; many style guides also capitalize the number-adjacent term consistently throughout.
• Keep "what's" as the spoken contraction; expanding it to "what has" changes the words.
• No comma before "what's been marked" - the clause is restrictive and the sentence reads cleanly without it. Do not insert punctuation to create pauses that were not spoken.

The test for each mark: does it reproduce the spoken sentence, or does it improve it?

The overlap:

1. Work the audio before deciding. Slow it down, isolate channels, listen several times. Unintelligibility is a last resort, not a first impression.
2. If it remains unintelligible, say so on the face of the transcript using the convention your firm and jurisdiction use - an "(Inaudible)" or a proceeding parenthetical such as "(Whereupon, simultaneous discussion was had by the witness and counsel, which was unintelligible.)" Include the approximate timing if the passage spans a noticeable interval.
3. Never reconstruct. A plausible sentence invented to smooth the page is a fabricated record, and it will be indefensible if the audio is ever produced.
4. Flag it in the delivery letter so counsel knows the passage exists and can supplement the record if they wish.

The request to "clean it up":

• Separate what is permissible from what is not. Formatting, consistent speaker labels, corrected margins, and clean page numbering are legitimate. Changing words, deleting the double negative, expanding contractions, or filling an unintelligible passage are not.
• Say it in one sentence: "I can deliver a clean-formatted transcript on a rush basis; I cannot alter wording or supply testimony that is not on the recording."
• Do not let the rush fee become the argument. A fee affects the deadline, never the standard.
• Remember the certification: you will sign a statement that the transcript is a true and correct record. If the delivered product is not, the fee is irrelevant.