Court transcribers urge lawmakers to update 1980s pay rate

Professional court transcribers are desperate to receive their first pay raise since Ronald Reagan was president, and they hope that the eighth time before the Legislature will prove to be the charm.

For more than a decade, the small field of transcribers has been urging lawmakers to boost the flat per-page rate for their work, which they say was last adjusted in 1988. Their campaign cleared a legislative committee last term, but the bill died before the House Ways and Means Committee without receiving a vote.

Supporters visited Beacon Hill again Tuesday to pitch the Judiciary Committee on quickly advancing the latest version of the proposal (H 1649 / S 1168), filed for the eighth term.

"When I last appeared before you, it had been 35 years without an increase. It has now been 37 years without an increase," Barbara Reardon, an approved court transcriber, told lawmakers. "Please don't make us come back when it's 39 years."

Some speakers told lawmakers they were previously salaried employees with benefits before the state in 2018 eliminated the position of court reporter. Now, dozens of transcribers continue to work as independent contractors, they said, providing documents crucial for legal proceedings around Massachusetts.

State law calls for the party requesting a court transcript to pay $3 per page for the original and $1 per page for a copy, with higher rates for so-called daily copies. Indigent requesters or their counsel face lower rates of 10 cents per page.

Sen. Joan Lovely, who filed the Senate version of the bill, said the per-page rate would be more than $8 today if it had kept up with inflation since 1988. The legislation seeks an increase to $4.50 per page for originals and $1.50 per page for copies.

It would also automatically increase fees in subsequent years based on changes in the Consumer Price Index, which supporters said would prevent another decades-long stretch without changes.

"No other worker in the commonwealth of Massachusetts is more deserving of a raise than someone who has gone without an increase in 37 years," said veteran transcriber Paula Pietrella. "We cannot go another year, another decade, with the same frozen-in-time compensation."

Transcribers stressed they are paid only for the pages they produce and not for how much time a job takes.

Linda Wesson, another approved transcriber, said the job "extends far beyond just typing words from audio."

"It is a physically taxing job, sitting in one position all day. The process demands precise listening skills, editing, proofreading and tons of research for accuracy, which is not reflected in our current page rate," Wesson said. "Transcriptionists are responsible for absorbing all our technology, software, hardware maintenance [costs] — we're responsible for those. This statute has remained unchanged for 37 years and fails to account for today's economic realities."

Bill supporters are backed by the Committee for Public Counsel Services, an organization tasked by the state with ensuring Bay Staters who cannot afford their own private legal counsel still receive representation, and leaders of the state Trial Court, who wrote to lawmakers Tuesday to express their support.

Trial Court Chief Justice Heidi Brieger and Court Administrator Thomas Ambrosino said the rate increase would increase costs to the Trial Court by about $525,000.

CPCS Director of Audit and Oversight William Shay told lawmakers his group "strongly supports this version of the bill." Shay said the number of transcribers has remained "relatively stagnant" at several dozen even while the need for transcripts increases.

"This results in delays in court proceedings and puts an additional burden and stress on this tiny pool of transcribers who are performing this work," he said. "We strongly believe at CPCS that passage of this bill will help to address a shortage of transcribers, help to expedite the disposition of cases, and would be a great benefit to litigants who are CPCS clients and private litigants in the commonwealth."

Rep. Jennifer Balinsky Armini pitched the Judiciary Committee on the bill by remarking that "most of you do not remember 1988, at least not well."

"I was a freshman in college. I had big Jersey hair, shoulder pads in my oversized jackets, acid-washed jeans and neon bracelets climbing my arms. 'Cringy,' as my daughter would say," Armini said. "No one should revisit that look, and no one should have to live on the same wage they did then."

Wesson and another court transcriber, Gerry Shea, also made their case before the Joint Committee on Ways and Means during a state budget hearing Tuesday.

Backers could get a quick answer from the Judiciary Committee on at least the House version of the bill. The panel must report on House bills that received a hearing Tuesday by June 7, part of a rules reform targeting quicker movement through the initial committee review.