FALL 2012
G R
C P
C R
B N
Message from the Chair
Toni O’Neill
C R B C
2535 Capitol Oaks Dr., Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95833
Toll Free: (877) 327-5272
Phone: (916) 263-3660
Fax: (916) 263-3664
Inside this issue ...
Bill Bolstering Consumer
Protection Chaptered ............................. 2
Transcript Reimbursement Fund
Pro Per Pilot Project .............................. 3
CRB Loses Public Board Member ......... 3
Public Hearing on Proposed
Regulation Change Scheduled .............. 3
CSRs Needed for Exam Workshops ..... 4
Examination Statistics ........................... 4
Technology Update ............................... 4
School Review Update .......................... 5
Student Spotlight ................................... 5
Frequently Asked Questions ................. 6
CSR Spotlight ........................................ 7
Technology Overhaul to Bring
Easier Access, More Efficiency ............. 8
Internet Captioning Gets a Boost .......... 8
CRB Sunset Bill Chaptered ................... 8
Transcript Fee Code Amended ............. 9
Strategic Plan Update ............................ 9
Citations and Fines Issued .................. 10
Disciplinary Actions ............................. 10
Board Members
T O’N, CSR, Chair
G F, Vice Chair
R E, CSR
E L
Y K. F, Executive Officer
L G, Editor
P B, Layout Designer
www.CourtReportersBoard.ca.gov
Message continued on page 2
Changes solidify our resolve
“The Times They Are a-Changin’” is a song written
by Bob Dylan and released as the title track of his 1964
album of the same name. The song was ranked No. 59
on Rolling Stone’s 2004 list of “The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.” It was
written during a time of political and social upheaval for America.
While not on the same scale, the court reporting industry in California is
surely in the midst of great upheaval. Within the last year, several courts across
the state have made the decision to stop providing official court reporters in
civil courtrooms. From San Francisco and Alameda to Los Angeles and San
Diego, civil litigants are now required to privately hire the services of a court
reporter in order to create a record to protect their appeal rights.
Confusion seems to reign as laid-off officials enter the freelance marketplace
and freelancers are being hired to report in civil courtrooms. When do
statutory transcript rates apply? Can reporters charge for realtime services?
What constitutes daily copy? These are only samples of the myriad of
questions that have been flooding the CRB office -- and not only from court
reporters. Attorneys, too, are trying to find their way through the changes
in the industry.
It seems there has never been a time when the need for the CRB has
been greater. The ultimate consumer of court reporting services – the
litigant – is often removed from the practical decisions of arranging for the
court reporting services. The litigants are especially vulnerable as they are
often unaware that statutory transcript rates even exist. It’s essential that the
CRB continue to educate the licensees as well as our consumers to ensure no
one is disadvantaged.
C R B C
Message continued from cover
Consumer protection can be a challenge in the best of times. In the current world of budget constraints, the CRB has had
to really step up to meet the needs of the consumers despite ever-shrinking resources. It’s a time to tighten belts, but never at
the expense of consumer protection. The court budget cuts plaguing the legal system throughout California prompted Los
Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon to say in a recent news release: “These extraordinary actions cut
into the core work of the courts. With risks of more reductions on the horizon, we are already rationing justice. The public
cannot tolerate any further major service reductions.”
“Rationing justice” is in direct conflict with the Board’s goals. We are, and will continue to be, champions of access to
justice. It’s imperative that the Board continue its focus on its mission of playing a major role in ensuring that court reporters
provide the highest quality professional services.
It seems apt to add a line from the lyrics of “The Times They Are A-Changin’”: “And don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s
still in spin.” We don’t know how the changes will shake out; we only know that we’re in a state of flux. No matter what
happens, however, the CRB remains undaunted in its ongoing effort to protect the integrity of the public records and access
to justice.
Bill Bolstering Consumer Protection Chaptered
Assembly Bill 2657, authored by Assemblyman Calderon, was chaptered in July, increasing consumer protection
for those utilizing a transcript prepared from an electronically recorded proceeding. Existing law allows courts to
use electronic recording equipment in a limited civil case, a misdemeanor or infraction case, or for the purpose of
monitoring judicial officer performance. If such recording equipment is used, then a transcript may be created.
The recently passed legislation requires transcripts created with electronic recording equipment to designate as
inaudible or unintelligible any portions of the recording that contain no audible sound or the sounds are not
discernible.
This is a significant improvement to consumer protection. Prior to the passage of this legislation, transcribers
could — and often did — simply leave out any portion of the recording that was unable to be heard, whether due
to overlapping speakers, extraneous background noise or the speaker simply moving away from the microphone.
With no indication that anything had been left out, an attorney or litigant receiving the transcript would have
no idea the transcript was anything but complete. With the use of the inaudible or unintelligible notations, the
consumer is made aware that there is more contained in the recording than is reflected on the paper transcript. A
complete, accurate transcript is essential to our justice system as it forms the basis of all appeals.
The Court Reporters Board was contacted by legislative staff as the bill was being analyzed early on in its
trek through the Legislature to find out why court reporters were not also required to use an “inaudible” or
“indiscernible” parenthetical when preparing court or deposition transcripts as part of this bill’s language. The
Board explained that not only are they not required to use such parentheticals, a court reporter who used one
would likely be subject to discipline against their license on the basis of incompetency. The court reporter has an
obligation to interrupt the proceedings for clarification if he or she does not hear something clearly.
G R C P
www.CourtReportersBoard.ca.gov
CRB Loses Public Board Member
The beginning of June marked the end of the term for
Board Member Lori Gualco. Ms. Gualco, who was
appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, had served on
the Board since 2007.
“We will miss Lori’s presence at our meetings,” noted
Board Chair Toni O’Neill. “As an attorney and ultimate
consumer of court reporting services, her perspective was
very useful to our policy discussions.”
Board Executive Officer Yvonne Fenner added that Ms.
Gualco could always be counted on to state her views, no
matter how controversial. “Having a dissonant opinion is
good as it ensures the Board has a thorough discussion of
an issue before reaching a decision,” said Ms. Fenner “She
will be missed.”
Any member of the public who is not a licensed CSR and
is interested in applying for the vacant seat should contact
Lisa Dominguez with the office of the Assembly Speaker
John A. Pérez at (916) 319-3736. The Board encourages
anyone with an interest in serving the public to consider
putting in an application quickly, as the processing time is
quite lengthy.
Transcript Reimbursement Fund Pro Per Pilot Project:
Money Still Available for Provisionally Approved Transcript Payments
As we reported earlier this year, the second half of the two-year Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) pro per
pilot project began in January. The program extends cost assistance for transcripts to indigent persons representing
themselves. After processing the numerous requests remaining from 2011 and the flood of applications received through
April 2, 2012, 131 requests were approved, and the $30,000 allowance for the current calendar year has been fully
allocated.
Since the inception of the project, staff has approved 261 requests and paid out $39,975.83. There is currently
$19,529.89 that has been allocated but remains unclaimed. This means that staff is awaiting invoices from the certified
shorthand reporters (CSRs) for which payments for transcripts were provisionally approved. If the CSRs choose not to
bill the Board, they may release the funds by notifying the Board in writing so that the funding may become available
to additional indigent litigants.
At this time, completed applications without deficiencies are being held in the event that previously allocated funding
becomes available. Since the TRF was included in the now chaptered sunset review bill, SB 1236, the pro per pilot
project was extended to January 1, 2017. Therefore, pending applications will be eligible for the additional $30,000 that
is due to be deposited into the fund on January 1, 2013.
Public Hearing on Proposed
Regulation Change Scheduled
Those in the know — aka subscribers to the CRB e-mail
notification list — are already aware that the CRB has
begun the process to amend the gift-giving regulation, 16
CCR, section 2475(a)(8). There has been confusion in
the industry about how to interpret “per person or entity.”
Some have incorrectly interpreted the existing language
to mean $100 per person within an entity. The proposed
change will clarify that interpretation.
A public hearing to accept oral or written comments
was held on Monday, October 1, 2012, with the public
comment period closing at 5:00 p.m. that same day.
Possible amendments to the proposed language as a
result of comments received will be discussed at the
upcoming Board meeting in Sacramento on Friday,
October 12, 2012.
For the exact language of the proposed regulation change,
visit our Web site: www.CourtReportersBoard.ca.gov or
contact Paula Bruning at P[email protected].
C R B C
www.CourtReportersBoard.ca.gov
Written Exams
March 1, 2012 - June 30, 2012 Total Pass Overall %
English
Overall 105 33 31.4%
First Timers 54 22 40.7%
Professional Practice
Overall 88 54 61.4%
First Timers 55 34 61.8%
November 1, 2011 - February 29, 2012 Total Pass Overall %
English
Overall 65 17 26.2%
First Timers 30 11 36.7%
Professional Practice
Overall 66 35 53.0%
First Timers 29 17 58.6%
Dictation Exam
June 2012 Total Pass Overall %
Overall 144 20 13.9%
First Timers 56 15 26.8%
February 2012 Total Pass Overall %
Overall 100 27 27.0%
First Timers 29 17 58.6%
Examination Statistics
CSRs Needed for
Exam Workshops
If you currently work as a CSR and
your license is in good standing,
we need you. The CSR exam
development process involves a
series of workshops that requires
active CSR participation. Without
valuable subject matter expert
input, the workshops cannot take
place, and without a good supply of
test questions in the test bank, the
CRB will not be able to continue to
offer the written exam three times
per year.
For the health and growth of
the industry, please consider
accessing the CRB calendar at
www.CourtReportersBoard.ca.gov
to see if any of the upcoming exam
workshop dates might work for you.
Each two-day workshop is held from
Friday to Saturday in Sacramento.
All travel accommodations are
arranged by CRB staff. All
workshop participants will be
provided with a per diem rate of
$150 per day and travel expenses.
Those living farther than 50 miles
will also be reimbursed for hotel
accommodations at the State
approved rate.
Please pass this important message
on to reporters you know.
The future success of the CSR
industry lies with you. For more
information on participating in an
exam workshop, contact Kim Kale
Technology Update: How Small Can You Go?
There are several scientists who are in a contest to see who can store the most
data in the smallest space. Can you imagine storing your media library, health
and financial history as well as every bit of data relevant to your life on a device
smaller than a staple? According to an article by Elizabeth Svoboda published in
the May 2012 issue of Discover, this could happen within the decade. Researchers
are working with atoms, arranging them in such a way that each takes on the
opposite magnetic charge of its neighbor, which allows data to be packed far more
closely than in current hard drives.
Why would we need such a device? The demand is a by-product of the increased
communication between everything, from your refrigerator to your car to your
home heating. All of that data exchange is going to require huge amounts of
storage.
Will the quote of the future be: “Now, where did I put that little staple device?”
G R C P
Student Spotlight
A love for typing first attracted Gabriel Hernandez to court reporting. After studying
sign language at San Diego Mesa College, he was looking for a more defined career path.
He was exposed to the interesting job of a CSR through a friend’s daughter who was
working as one and decided to enroll in San Diego’s Sage College in July of 2010.
Although still working with language, court reporting adds additional challenges, such
as putting aside your emotions and focusing on the job at hand. “
You have to forget
your feelings temporarily and just keep going with your job,” says Gabriel. “It’s
amazing how people can do this,” he notes, impressed by his fellow students who have
mastered this skill.
Hearing heavy subject matter — and not letting it distract you — is all in a day’s work
for court reporters. “Today, for example, the teacher was reading a very literary transcript dealing with a brutal
crime,” says Gabriel. “We’ll hear it every day as court reporters, and it’s easy to feel for the victims, and the
challenge is to suspend your emotions,”he says. “You just have to keep reporting.”
He does hope to enter the court system after graduation next June and is actively networking with teachers and
following up on internship leads in order to make it happen.
For others pondering a CSR education, Gabriel has this advice: “Don’t get into it just because you think there’s
nothing else out there.
It’s no easy task. It takes a lot of time and effort, and you really have to put your all
into it.”
School Review Update
The Board has initiated Phase I of the two-phased compliance reviews of all recognized court reporting schools in
California. Each school is required to submit documentation on faculty qualifications, distance instruction, and
academic and other classroom requirements.
Phase II will be the on-site component, affording an opportunity to verify the data representing schools and program
delivery. Upon arriving, the team will conduct an orientation session with administrators, followed by a review of
files and instructional materials, in addition to interviews with students who volunteer to meet with the review team.
The areas of review include positive daily attendance records, student disclosure information, academic and skill
development progress, qualifier exams, and availability of library and equipment resources.
On-site visits to schools are planned for 2013; however, budget constraints may impact the timeline.
The reviews provide an opportunity for the CRB team and school administrators to exchange information and discuss
current issues. It also allows the CRB team to observe and meet with students at all skill levels who are preparing for
future careers as certified shorthand reporters.
C R B C
FAQs continued on page 7
Frequently Asked Questions
Q
The CRB letter of May 14, 2012, that is
on the Internet only addresses transcript
fees (Government Code sections 69950 - 69954).
Government Code section 69948 addresses court
reporter fees of $55.00 per day. Why was that omitted
from the discussion in your May 14 letter?
A
The court reporter fees set out in Government Code
section 69948 are what the court charges as part of
a cost recovery program and apply only to court reporters
that are hired for and paid by the court. The amount that a
privately-hired court reporter may charge for an appearance
fee to work in court is not set in statute, unlike the transcript
rates which apply to every court proceeding.
Q
I reported a deposition of a plaintiff who was a
minor child, suing through her guardian ad litem.
The questioning attorney advised the witness she would
be referred to as Minor A and not by name. However,
at one point the attorney mentioned the plaintiff by
name. Plaintiff’s attorney immediately jumped in and
said it should be redacted from the record. Although
defense counsel agreed, I mentioned that I cannot
redact the record. Plaintiff’s attorney explained that
he had an order from the court which would authorize
me to redact the minor’s name. Although everyone
agrees to the redaction, I’m just not comfortable. Will I
be placing my license in jeopardy if I comply with their
request?
A
You are to be commended for your dedication to
preserving the integrity of the record, but in this
particular case and in light of the court order, you must
change the minor’s name to Minor A. Minors are very
broadly protected under the law, as was probably explained
in the court order of confidentiality. It’s always a good idea
to put any stipulation on the record to avoid questions after
the fact.
Q
I have recently been hired as an official, and I
have had a nonparty request a copy of some
transcripts, one of a civil matter, another a criminal
case (not juvenile). I have looked everywhere, but
can’t find anything about whether I am allowed to sell
transcripts to non-parties. Can you help?
A
Unless there is a court order otherwise, court transcripts
are public records and may be sold to nonparties.
Q
I’m an attorney with a question. I recently
had a deposition in which a court
reporter hired by my opposing counsel routinely
inserted the following at breaks (eight times):
“(A discussion was held between the witness and his
attorneys out of the deposition room.)”
My concern is that this insertion is being made by a court
reporter, during a break that should be off the record,
and the court reporter has no idea what is occurring
outside the deposition room because the court reporter
is not there and cannot possibly have known whether a
discussion was held or not. In this particular instance,
the client is diabetic, and on some of the breaks, the
client needed to eat a very small snack. It seems
completely inappropriate for a court reporter to place
in the record information that is not in the record that
indicates behavior that may not have taken place. Is this
an appropriate parenthetical for a court reporter to use?
A
It is not. As you correctly noted, unless the court
reporter was outside of the deposition room and
observed the discussion, he or she could not possibly know
that such a discussion occurred. Even if the discussion was
observed, because it took place outside of the deposition
room, it is inappropriate for the court reporter to insert such
an observation into the deposition transcript.
Parentheticals are to be used only when necessary to clarify
the record. Court reporters should keep in mind they are
there to preserve the spoken record. It is up to counsel to
note on the record anything they believe is important to the
litigation. The court reporter should avoid parentheticals
describing demeanor or behavior except in cases where
it is absolutely necessary for clarification of the record.
Parentheticals should be brief and show no interpretation by
the court reporter. If an attorney wants a record of what is
happening beyond the spoken word, he or she has the option
of hiring a videographer or making whatever statement he
or she wishes in an effort to demonstrate what has been
observed.
G R C P
www.CourtReportersBoard.ca.gov
FAQs continued from page 6
Q
I understand that the transcript rates set out in
Government Code section 69950 apply to court
proceedings, but as a freelancer I cannot make it on
these rates, paying my own insurance and overhead.
To solve this problem I enter into an agreement with
the attorneys ahead of time, agreeing to a different
rate. Am I correct that as long as everyone agrees
beforehand, I’m covered?
A
Unfortunately, no. You cannot make an agreement
that is outside the law, even more so when it affects a
third-party, in this case the litigant. For example, consider a
situation in which a litigant fires his attorney and complains
to the Board that he/she did not agree to such an arrangement
and was overcharged for the transcript. While the Board
investigates and considers each complaint individually, based
solely on those facts, the Board would require the court
reporter to refund all but the statutory rate.
CSR Spotlight:
Steven Lee KoSmata, CSR, RPR, CLR
Steven Kosmata wasted no time in deciding to become a
court reporter. All it took was attending his high school’s
career day.
“I was taking a Gregg shorthand class at the time,” Steven
remembered. “My curiosity was piqued when I was made
to wonder how a court reporter could take down words so
quickly when I was struggling along at 50 words
per minute?”
After hearing the presentation that day from
a working court reporter about the types of
cases she reported and learning about the career
opportunities,
he was hooked, and he’s been at
it for more than 25 years.
“I don’t know where the time has gone,” said
Steven. “I can still remember the thrill of opening
up the envelope from the Board telling me that I
had passed the CSR test. In fact, I still have the
letter and my original license, as well as my first check that
I ever earned as a court reporter.”
Although he went straight from high school to court
reporting school at Bryan College, he did have a few
different jobs along the way to help with school financing,
one of which was in the music department of the Crystal
Cathedral in Garden Grove where he sang in the televised
choir. “I also worked at the Marriott hotel at Los Angeles
International Airport in the gift shops where I met various
athletes,” he said. “And the best real-world training I got
was in the back office of a deposition agency called Don
Lippman & Associates in Los Angeles. That’s where I
grew to appreciate the ‘behind the scenes’ transcript work
required to get it out the door for delivery.” Steven is now
an official reporter for the San Diego Superior Court.
As an outside hobby, he’s taken up couponing to help save
money. “I get a thrill from watching my register balance go
continually down by clipping,” he says. “It’s nice
to keep the money in my pocket instead of theirs.”
He said he also enjoys sharing his knowledge of
Eclipse software with friends and colleagues at
work and at conventions.
Steven says the best aspect of being a court reporter
is the opportunity to learn so much more than can
come from reading a book.
“Because I primarily do complex civil litigation
and hear about contracts, nasty bacteria, mold
in places it shouldn’t be, accidents, doctors —
every trial is full of challenges, hurdles, and ways
to improve. As far as the best aspects of being a CSR in
California, it has always been and will remain the people I
have met and work with. You truly are surrounded by very
smart people in court, and I like a good-hearted debate
about the law and how to interpret things. I also enjoy
traveling the world, and this job has allowed me the chance
to explore outside my box. But believe it or not, the most
enjoyable aspect of my job after more than 25 years is I still
enjoy walking into the courthouse ready to work all day in
Department 72with Judge Taylor and staff.”
C R B C
www.CourtReportersBoard.ca.gov
Internet Captioning Gets a Boost
In June, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that online businesses are subject to the American with Disabilities Act,
including captioning for the deaf. The decision was made in the case of The National Association for the Deaf vs.
Netflix. Netflix has contended that it is not subject to the ADA because it has no physical structure. U.S. District
Judge Michael Ponsor rejected the argument and is allowing the lawsuit to proceed, finding that the law prohibits
discrimination in any venue, including the Internet.
This could be a step toward requiring Netflix to provide closed-captioning on its video-streaming Web site, if
the plaintiff can prove that the ADA requires Netflix to do so. A 1996 federal law required closed-captioning for
television programs but did not address online videos. The Federal Communication Commission regulations will
require captioning on Internet videos of all post-1996 programs produced in the United States by March 2014. That
legislation resulted in an increase in demand for captioning services. The captioning industry as well as the deaf and
hard of hearing communities will be following this legislation closely.
Technology Overhaul to Bring Easier Access, More Efciency
In 2011, the California Department of Consumer Affairs
(DCA) launched the BreEZe project — the development
and implementation of a customer service center Web portal
and ad-hoc reporting tool that will create a standardized
enforcement and licensing system for consumers and DCA
entities to access online.
Once completed, BreEZe will be the largest online
enterprise-wide licensing and enforcement solution in the
world, bringing with it improved access to DCA’s services,
greater ease of use for stakeholders, and improved back-
office functionality that will greatly enhance licensing and
enforcement efficiency.
The integrated, enterprise-wide enforcement and licensing
system will support DCA’s needs for applicant tracking,
licensing, renewal, enforcement, monitoring, cashiering, and
data management. In addition, many of the tasks that were
paper-based and time-consuming to complete will now be
achievable online more efficiently.
The new technology will begin rolling out in the fall of 2012,
with the Court Reporters Board transitioning in spring
2013. All of DCA’s Boards and Bureaus will be transitioned
to BreEZe over an 18-month period.
The new system means users, including licensees, businesses,
and consumers, will be able to do the following online 24/7:
• Apply for or renew a license.
• Pay with a major credit card in a secure environment.
• Track the status of an application or licensing request.
• Submit address changes.
• Obtain proof of renewal status.
• Obtain real-time licensee information.
• File a complaint.
• Track the status of a complaint.
If you have a question about the BreEZe project, e-mail
BreEZeP[email protected].
CRB Sunset Bill Chaptered
Those following the progress of Senate Bill 1237 (Price) which extends the CRB’s sunset date to January 1, 2017, had a
brief flurry of excitement when they received the news that it was being held in committee under submission. Luckily for
the CRB, the language pertaining to the Board and the TRF was transferred to Senate Bill 1236 (Price), which was enrolled
and subsequently chaptered on September 14, 2012. The Board remains steadfastly committed to the consumer protection
mandate given to it by the Legislature.
G R C P
Transcript Fee Code Amended
The Court Reporters Board continues to work to educate licensees on applicable rates that can be charged for transcripts
of court proceedings, especially as more and more courts move toward the privatization of their civil court reporters.
Government Code 69950, which lists the fees for transcripts, was amended by the addition of section (c) and signed
into law as a trailer to the budget bill.
It is certainly not news to official court reporters that the transcript fees set out in Government Code 69950 are
hopelessly out of date, having been in effect and unchanged for over 20 years. Mindful of the State’s budget constraints,
court reporters in many counties over the years have been able to negotiate with their court administration an agreement
as to a predetermined number of words per page the reporters would be able to charge.
Section (c) states that if a trial court had established transcription fees that were in effect on January 1, 2012, based on
an estimate or assumption as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those fees shall be the fees
for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcript fees in those trial courts shall
not be unilaterally changed.
Freelance reporters going into court to cover a civil proceeding should be aware of what, if any, agreement regarding
transcript fees is in effect.
Strategic Plan Update
The 2012-2014 strategic plan was adopted at the last Board meeting in April, along with an action plan, as goals
are only dreams until they are accompanied by a plan of action. An item on the action plan under 2.1 — conduct
information sessions on CRB laws and regulations — calls for the Board to network with schools as travel restrictions
allow.
In June, Board Executive Officer Yvonne Fenner accepted an invitation from Sage College’s court reporting program
to speak to students preparing to take the license examination. Before a group of attentive listeners, Ms. Fenner
presented information on the Board’s mission and role in consumer protection, information on how the license
exam is developed, as well as the complaint process.
“It’s important to interact with students,” said Ms. Fenner, “and I found the group from Sage College to be very
inquisitive and enthusiastic about their chosen profession. It’s a tough field, so it’s always interesting to me to see
the kind of people who accept the challenge.”
Networking with the schools is one area that has been especially challenging with the current travel restrictions. In
fact, the Board has been limited to speaking where the school will host the trip. However, Ms. Fenner is hopeful to
be able to interact with more schools in conjunction with mandatory school oversight visits which are scheduled to
begin again with Phase II of the current review schedule.
C R B C
Court Reporters Board of California - Citations and Fines Issued March 2012 - August 2012
The Citations and Fines remain posted for one year from the date initially issued. To nd out whether a specic licensee has ever been issued a Citation and Fine prior to the date shown, or to
obtain further information on a specic Citation and Fine, please contact the Board ofce toll-free at 1-877-3-ASK-CRB (1-877-327-5272).
The above respondents’ Citation and Fines that reect “Satised” have been satisfactorily resolved. Payment of a ne is not an admission to the violation.
RESPONDENT NAME - CITY LICENSE NO. DATE ISSUED VIOLATION SATISFIED
Hamilton, Collette – Redwood Valley, CA 11610 8/21/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8016: Engaging in the practice of shorthand reporting
without a certicate of licensure in full force and effect. (late renewal)
No
Mobley, Kasey –Riverside, CA 13407 8/20/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d) and (e): Unprofessional conduct… availability,
delivery, execution and certication of transcripts… (failed to timely produce transcript)
No
Culy, Candyce – Fresno, CA 9065 8/01/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d) and (e): Unprofessional conduct… availability,
delivery, execution and certication of transcripts… (failed to timely produce transcript)
No
Miller, Shelley – Modesto, CA 9194 6/28/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8016: Engaging in the practice of shorthand reporting
without a certicate of licensure in full force and effect. (late renewal)
Yes
Ikeuye, Noreen – San Francisco, CA 3538 5/14/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8016: Engaging in the practice of shorthand reporting
without a certicate of licensure in full force and effect. (late renewal)
Yes
Gallardo, Yvette – Monterey, CA 12889 4/25/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d) and (e): Unprofessional conduct… availability,
delivery, execution and certication of transcripts… (failed to timely produce transcript)
No
Gadberry, Sandi – Fresno, CA 3482 4/25/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8016: Engaging in the practice of shorthand reporting
without a certicate of licensure in full force and effect. (late renewal)
Yes
Schlotterbeck, Amy – Diamond Bar, CA 12991 4/13/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d): Unprofessional conduct… availability, delivery,
execution and certication of transcripts… (failed to produce transcript)
No
Schlotterbeck, Amy – Diamond Bar, CA 12991 4/3/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d): Unprofessional conduct… availability, delivery,
execution and certication of transcripts… (failed to produce transcript)
No
Morales, Kendra – Alameda, CA 7259 3/29/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8016: Engaging in the practice of shorthand reporting
without a certicate of licensure in full force and effect. (late renewal)
Yes
Schlotterbeck, Amy – Diamond Bar, CA 12991 3/21/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d): Unprofessional conduct… availability, delivery,
execution and certication of transcripts… (failed to produce transcript)
No
Court Reporters Board of California - Disciplinary Actions March 2012 - September 2012
The disciplinary actions listed below cover the period of time from March 2012 to September 2012. To nd out whether a licensee has had disciplinary action prior to March 2012, or to obtain
further information on specic disciplinary action for a licensee listed below, please contact the Board ofce toll-free at 1-877-3-ASK-CRB (1-877-327-5272).
A disciplinary action is a formal proceeding that includes the basis for the action sought against the licensee. These disciplinary actions are held in front of an Administrative Law Judge and
allow for attorney, testimony, and challenges as provided in the legal system. The Administrative Law Judge then issues a decision that the Board can accept, reject, or send back for additional
information. Disciplinary cases can result in license suspension and/or a probationary status with conditions.
RESPONDENT NAME - CITY LICENSE NO. ACTION EFFECTIVE DATE CHARGES
Schantz, Leslie - Carpinteria, CA 13471 Stipulated Settlement and
Disciplinary Order; 3 years
probation; $2,500 cost
recovery.
09/26/2012 Business & Professions Code Sections 8025 (a) and 490: Conviction of a crime; Section
8025 (c ): misrepresentation in obtaining license renewal; Section 8025 (d): Unprofes-
sional conduct, dishonesty.
Gunter, Diana - El Dorado, CA 8431 Decision and Order; license
revocation.
09/10/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d): Unprofessional conduct; Section 8025 (e):
Repeated unexcused failure… to transcribe notes; CA Code of Regulations, Title 16, sec-
tion 2480 (d): Failure to pay Citation and Fine or comply with Order of Abatement.
Brewer, Stephan - Fresno, CA 13081 Default Decision and Order;
license revocation.
05/29/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (a): Conviction of a crime; Sections 8025 (d),
(f), (h) & (j): Unprofessional conduct, failure to deliver stenographic notes; Section 8025
(h): Failure to comply with Citation and Fine; Section (d): Unprofessional conduct, failure to
time produce transcripts.
Court Reporters Board Of California - Disciplinary Actions Pending March 2012 - September 2012
Chapa, Sandi - Hayward, CA 11031 Petition to Revoke Probation 09/14/2012 Petition to Revoke Probation: First Cause - Failure to obey all laws; Second Cause - Failure
to submit quarterly reports; Third Cause - Failure to submit supplemental reports; Fourth
Cause - Failure to prove use of proofreader; Fifth Cause - Failure to perform within
competence.
Heard, Patrick - San Francisco, CA 11055 Accusation and Petition to
Revoke Probation
07/31/2012 Accusation: Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (e): Repeated unexcused failure…
to transcribe notes.
Petition to Revoke Probation: First Cause - Failure to obey all laws; Second Cause - Failure
to comply with Board's probation program.
Dearmore, Diane - Santa Rosa, CA 12736 Accusation 07/24/2012 Business & Professions Code Section 8025 (d): Unprofessional conduct.
Peters, Ronald - Rancho Cordova, CA 2780 Accusation 07/24/2012 Business & Professions Code Sections 8025 (d): Unprofessional conduct; fraud,
dishonesty, and/or corruption in or directly related to the practice of shorthand reporting.
Luciano, Catherine N/A Statement of Issues 07/24/2012 Business & Professions Code Sections 8025 (a) and 480 (a)(1): Conviction of a crime;
Section 8025 (c): Fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining shorthand reporter certicate;
Section 480 (c): False statement in license application; Section 480 (a)(2): Act involving
dishonesty or deceit.
