Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Transcribers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transcribers press committee to raise page rate after 37 years at $3
Summary
Court transcribers, the Trial Court and the Committee for Public Counsel Services urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to update G.L. c.221 §88 and increase the statutory page rate from $3 to $4.50, citing 37 years without adjustment, rising costs and a shortage of transcribers.
Approved court transcribers, attorneys and the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) testified in support of H.1649 / S.1168, asking the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to increase the per-page statutory rate for court transcripts and to add an automatic CPI adjustment.
Multiple transcribers and representatives said the current $3-per-page rate was set in 1988 and has not kept pace with inflation or the technological and administrative costs of producing accurate transcripts. Paula Pietrela, a former official court reporter who remains an approved transcriber, told the committee the statute “has not been changed since 1988” and emphasized that many transcribers are independent contractors who pay for software, hardware and other expenses.
William E. Shea, director of audit and oversight at the Committee for Public Counsel Services, said CPCS supports increasing the original page rate to $4.50 and that delays in obtaining transcripts create case backlogs that prolong pretrial detention and hearings. Testifiers said there are about 71 approved transcribers used across the Trial Court departments and that many are overworked; transcribers said producing a transcript takes three to six hours in addition to research and formatting time.
Speakers asked the committee to restore a five-year automatic CPI adjustment included in earlier drafts to avoid repeated refile cycles. Several transcribers described the work as a career and urged lawmakers to include a modest automatic escalation to prevent repeated legislative cycles requiring the same testimony.
No vote or formal committee motion was recorded during the hearing; the committee accepted oral and written testimony and encouraged submitters to provide supplemental materials.
Why it matters: Accurate transcripts are essential to appellate review, preparation of counsel and fair process for indigent and private litigants alike. Supporters argue that higher pay and a modest CPI mechanism would expand the pool of transcribers and move cases through the system more quickly.
