The most recent information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicates that the outlook for the court reporting profession will remain relatively positive over the next few years.

Approximately 22,000 court reporting positions existed in the United States at the end of 2010, according to the data compiled by the BLS. In March 2012, the agency’s analysts released a report asserting that they expect this figure to grow by about 14 percent over the next few years.

If the modest but steady rate of growth projected by the BLS is matched by market conditions, the total number of court reporting jobs in the United States could increase by more than 3,000 by the end of the year 2020.

The strong outlook for the court reporting profession led the job search service CareerCast to rank “court reporter” sixth on a list of the 10 best jobs that are open to individuals who hold the requisite skills and certifications, but may lack a four-year degree.

Paralegals and legal assistants also made the list, with a much larger base – over 250,000 – and a slightly higher growth rate of 18 percent attributed to the field by the BLS report.

When charged with examining witness testimony, these legal professionals depend on court reporters to provide them with accurate deposition transcripts. In addition to traditional transcription services, a modern court reporting agency can also provide deposition videography.

What’s driving the demand for transcription and videography services?

It is critical for legal professionals to have an accurate understanding of events in order to effectively advocate for their clients. Court reporters create comprehensive transcripts of what is said during court depositions. These documents allow attorneys and their staff to scrutinize individual statements and refine their understanding of a case’s details.

Additional insight can be gleaned from witness testimony through the use of video deposition services. Beyond catching the words that are said in court, trained legal videographers capture every visible and audible detail. This additional perspective can be quite useful.

With both written and recorded transcripts, attorneys will have two angles from which to consider witness testimony. This allows a more well-rounded analysis than would be possible with only one account of a deposition.

When it comes to typed deposition transcripts, even the most detailed account is not fully able to convey every aspect of a  witness’s testimony. Supplementing the written record with a video of the deposition will ensure none of the event’s details escape notice.

Full-service agencies offer more than simple transcription

Court reporting companies can also provide legal professionals with other litigation services, including video conferencing capabilities.

Quality reporting firms can even provide their clients with access to private office facilities, which can help make sure that a deposition, meeting, video conference or interview goes smoothly. Experienced, in-house deposition reporters and legal videographers will be on hand to create transcripts of the day’s events.

The full range of transcription and videography services are also available in non-legal settings and there are many situations in which it can be useful to have a word-for-word account of proceedings. Court reporters can create written or recorded transcripts of public hearings, corporate meetings, seminars or any other events.

There is never a good time for a lawsuit, but companies and individuals constantly face the threat of litigation.

In some cases, one company can even be compelled to defend another in court. A recent example, Blasing vs. Menard Inc., showed how organizations can become involved in lawsuits unexpectedly.

The case stemmed from an incident that took place at a Menards home improvement store in Jefferson, Wisconsin. Vicki Blasing was at the retailer’s lumber yard to purchase wood boards. A Menards employee was in the process of using a forklift to load the boards into Blasing’s truck when a few boards fell and struck her foot.

Blasing filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that it had acted negligently and violatedstate law. In court, Menard argued that the insurer with which Blasing had an auto policy was legally obligated to defend and possibly indemnify the home improvement company for potential liabilities related to the accident.

The District IV Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed with the claims put forward by the defendant, finding that, under state law, American Family Insurance was required to defend Menard because one of its employees was “using” Blasing’s truck, and thus covered by her auto policy.

Writing for the three-judge panel that heard the case, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote that if the legislature wanted to see a different result in future cases, it should amend the relevant statute governing auto insurance in the state.

Companies that are unexpectedly thrust into lawsuits need to be able to analyze the details of a case carefully in order to have the best chance of prevailing in court. Working with certified court reporters can help an organization and its attorneys in this regard by ensuring that they have access to accurate deposition transcripts.

In its first decision of 2013, the Wisconsin Supreme Courtissued a ruling that may have an impact on future lawsuits against state employees. The verdict – handed down on January 3 – settled a case centered on the role of witness testimony in a negligence claim against a state official.

Under Wisconsin law, individuals who wish to pursue a legal claim against anyone acting as an agent or representative of the state must first file a notice with the attorney general’s office. In Estate of Hopgood vs. Boyd, Wisconsin’s top judicial authority clarified some aspects of this process.

Specifically, the court ruled that any notice of a claim against state workers must include a statement from a notary asserting that he or she administered an oath to the witnesses. This act locks in their stories and exposes them to perjury charges if any of their statements are discovered to be false.

The case arose after an accident in which Jimmy Boyd operated a state-owned vehicle on Highway 142 in Paris, Wisconsin. Boyd lost control of the vehicle and it veered off the road, killing Danny Hopgood and injuring four other individuals.

Hopgood’s estate and the other petitioners sent the required notice to the attorney general and moved forward with a complaint against Boyd, who filed a motion requesting that the case be dismissed. He argued that the petitioners had violated state law by not properly “swearing to” the notices that were sent to the attorney general’s office.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling overturned lower courts’ decisions to uphold the statements contained in the notices. However, the court clarified standards for evaluating comparable situations in the future.

This case underscores the importance of understanding all the details of witness testimony. Wisconsin court reporters can provide attorneys with transcription and video deposition services. With an accurate record of witnesses’ statements, litigants better identify opportunities to advance their claims.