Aspies For Freedom

Would court reporter using a stenomask be a good occupation for someone with AS?   The court reporter repeats everything that is said in the court into the stenomask digital recorder.  Voice recognition software is used to make text copy of the court proceedings.  Later, it just needs to be cleaned up on the computer and formatted.

I am going for a grammar test as the first part of an interview process.  They told me they would train me.  I do not know if the position is just for text clean up of if they would actually train me for court reporting.  

I thought that a college degree was required for court reporting.  They do not seem to use the old stenograph typerwriter anymore.  That process takes too long to produce the transcripts from the shorthand notes.  

What advantages does someone with AS have for this type of work?  I think that impartiality to the case could be one thing.  I am sure I would not know if someone was lying in their testimony.  

What do you think about the occupation of court reporter?

It could be good if someone had no speech difficulties, and wasn't easily distracted.

I doubt if it would work for me...example:

'the defendant was not in the building in the thirty minutes proceeding the offence taking place..ooohh look at that briefcase, it looks like leather but its very shiny, what on earth made it look like that, and green is a very unusual colour for leather, maybe its a kind of vinyl substitute...ohh..err..'
:o

LOL Amy   :lol:

I can't talk and listen at the same time, even if there aren't any interesting shiny objects of distraction nearby.  Not enough speech processing circuits, I suppose.

I took the grammar test today.  There were alot of legal terms on it that I had no idea about.  They said the job was just operating the stenomask while lawyers and clients make statements.  No computer.  So why do they test our grammar?

I do not know if I can do the repeating everything I hear until I try it.  So I suppose I could try practicing with the television.

I used to be a court reporter.

I haven't heard of the stenomask though.

I learned how to write using a stenograph, but it takes a lot of practising to get up to the required speeds to be able to be a 'writer' so people sometimes start out as an editor and graduate onto writing after practising for months in their spare time to get up to speed.  At the time I passed my accreditation test (this was quite a few years ago), there were only about 50 people in the world, outside the US qualified to do what's called realtime online editing, i.e. editing in court or arbitrations on a laptop hooked up to the stenograph, and I was one of them.  Not a bad achievement for an Aspie!  I had, however, been a legal PA for a few years beforehand so was fairly fluent in legalese and had good typing speeds.

I wouldn't worry too much though about the terminology.  I was lucky, I had a head start, but some of fellow trainees didn't have a legal background, and they managed okay, you just spend a lot of time double checking the spelling of legal terms at first.

Where are you based?  I know in the UK they still use a fair amount of latin legal terminology.  There were moves to simplify language some years ago, but I think some lawyers still prefer the latin for its pomposity, gives them a learned air!  

Tbh, it's one of the reasons why I get really annoyed with some of the information I've come across on the 'web about suitable careers for Aspies, and they usually recommend computer programmer, or something really brainless, like stacking shelves in a supermarket.

There's lots of structure in law, the framework of court cases and the procedures mean you know where you stand in terms of there are rules everyone has to abide by.  And then the language:  I know that some diagnostic criteria say that Aspies have a problem with language (strengths with logic and maths and science), but I don't know whether that's supposed to refer to spoken language and verbal communication.  Either way, I've never really had that problem, I was always more of the typical 'little professor' type than the non-verbal!   

I think Aspies can blend in very well in a legal environment (heck I did for years!) precisely because of the stereotype of Aspies having quite formal language.  You can't get much more formal than legalese!

Legalese is like a language, and it is possible to become fluent in it.  Just as some Aspies can become fluent in computer programing languages.  Just get a legal dictionary, you shouldn't have a problem, honestly!

They test your grammar because... here's the shocker... y'know how everyone assumes that a court transcript is 'verbatim', as in what appears on the transcript is *exactly* what is said in court?  Ain't so.  And that's where the grammar comes in.

Again, don't know whether you're based in UK or US or elsewhere, but I know that in England and Wales at least, plus HK and Singapore, it is only witness evidence in a criminal trial that will be 100 per cent absolutely definitely verbatim.  In civil cases, the editor of the transcript is given a little bit of leeway to 'tidy up' the transcript.  Nothing major of course, nothing that would change the meaning.  

For example, if counsel says:  "I refer you to... erm... page 63 in... erm... bundle A [of the court documents], where you will see that... oh sorry, I meant page 92 in bundle B... do you recall sending that letter..."

You'd tidy that up to:  "I refer you to page 92 in bundle B; do you recall sending that letter?"

Natural speech involves lots of umming and aahing, which as a court reporter you'd edit out.  You'd also tidy up what they call false starts... where someone starts a sentence but changes their mind after they've started and corrected themself.  And you'd correct mistakes like referring to the wrong page and bundle number.

It just makes the transcript much easier to read when the lawyers are going through it to prepare their cross-examinations and stuff.

Practising in front of the television is a good idea.

I have a Chinese friend who's a newsreader for an English language news service and her English is flawless.  Lots of her colleagues are very fluent, but she's the best.  The reason she's so good is that she practised by sitting in front of the television and repeating what BBC newsreaders said.  She used it to improve her pronounciation and tone and delivery for newsreading purposes, but it was a very good trick that she taught me. I've since tried it to try and improve my newsreading skills.

That's kind of irrelevant to you, in a way, but the point I'm making is that you can train your brain to hear something and a fraction of a second later you repeat it.  Your brain kind of goes on automatic pilot and simultaneously carries out both functions.  Of course, it takes practise; sometimes you lose your place and you miss a few words, but you pick it up again.  And they would train you to do this, so don't worry too much.

If ever I come across something that I'm not sure whether or not I can do it, the most reassuring thing is to tell myself that I'm not the first, what I'm doing isn't groundbreaking.  Other people have trained to listen and speak at the same time, so it's a skill that can be acquired and it's very likely that you will be able to acquire it.  Of course, I can't guarantee that, because we Aspies do have our foibles.

Sorry for breaking up my reply, but I was waffling a bit and also my PC's a bit temperamental and inclined to crash at inopportune moments, so I thought I'd better submit it in chunks in case I lost my reply.

In summary, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to do this job, because I did a very similar job.  Unless your particular form of Aspieness affects your auditory processing in such as way as to prevent you from doing the talkback thing.

I found court reporting to be very interesting (I worked on the libel trial of the decade in the late 1990s involving a former government minister and the owner of Harrods in the cash for questions affair).  Although sometimes it could be tedious and dull (shipping arbitration and insurance fraud cases... yawn!)  The hours were fairly regular with a 10am start (no 9am starts, which was great for me, because I'm not a morning person!), although it could be quite hard work if you'd had a witness who wasn't easy to understand and you'd have to work through your lunch to edit, and stay late till maybe 7pm to finish the transcript.  If I worked with a really good writer, and the evidence was fairly clear, my hours would be 10am-5pm.  I didn't mind working late sometimes, because I'd been a PA in corporate law, doing mergers and acquisitions and I'd often had to work till midnight, so a 'late finish' of 7pm as a court reporter was an early night for me!

Oh, and it's very flexible (again, in the UK, I don't know about the US), as court reporters are traditionally self-employed, so you can choose when you want to work or even work part time (if you find someone else who will work your opposite hours).  Lots of the court reporters I worked with (they were mostly women, only a couple of guys) found that it fit in very well with raising a family, because of the long court holidays during the Christmas, Easter and Summer recess.

And finally, it's quite well paid.

Why am I no longer a court reporter?

I went travelling.  After I returned to England, I returned to Manchester and I used to do court reporting in London.  I was considering moving back down to London, but then had an accident.  I smashed up my wrist very badly.  I can no longer sustain typing/editing for eight hours a day in court or arbitrations.  My wrist is hurting after writing my response to your post.  :cry:

Hope this helps.  If you have any questions, ask away and I'll do my best to answer them.

Doing court reporter work does sound interesting.  I think at least more than 20 people applied for the job and I do not know how many they are hiring.  Most of the applicants were young women, younger than me.  

I am really good at looking things up.  In fact, when I called the company  to make my appointment, the worker was impressed that I had looked up their company name and address from the internet.  They had just placed a newspaper ad with a fax number.

Don't worry about that.  My class, I think there was around 15 of us, were mostly young-ish women too, it was advertised as a graduate traineeship, I wasn't even a graduate, but I applied because of my legal background.  There was another woman my age, late 20s, as well.  They also had some older people, including a guy, who were on a kind of secondment from the RAF, because they weren't being trained by the company to work in courts martial.  

Using your intiative to look things up is also a plus point, you'll maybe have to do some random research, double checking the spelling of company names or unfamiliar towns or cities, or even the names of currencies in different countries, or maybe medical terms for a clinical negligence case, or engineering terms for a construction case.

Looking up the company details from the fax number shows initiative, and also attention to detail, like realising if you've got a small amount of detail, and if you can use your initiate, you can be very resourceful in solving problems.

Basically, the thing about interviews [fingers crossed, hope you did okay], is to s-p-e-l-l - i-t - o-u-t for them.  I wouldn't necessarily say:  I'm Aspie so that means I'd be good at a job like this, but I would point out to them, I have excellent language skills, I'm very good at paying attention to detail (your accuracy levels have to be 98+ per cent).

Do you think you did yourself justice when answering their questions?  Sometimes it's hard to tell what they're looking for, but over the years I've read some books about interview skills, which helped enormously.

And also... funnily enough... and don't mock it... but girly magazines like Cosmo often run feature articles about career and relationship type stuff.  Sometimes I think Cosmo used to be my NT bible in my teens and early twenties.  :oops:  The articles would address scenarios like going for a job interview, what questions the interviewers are likely to ask, what responses they're looking for, how you should dress (smart, shiny shoes, styled hair), how you should act (firm handshake and smile when greeting, maintain eye contact with members of the interview panel when they're asking you questions, look at all the panel while you're delivering your answers so you're addressing your answers to all of them, at the end tell them from what you've discussed you like the sound of the job even more and you're very keen to join them, smile, shake hands to say goodbye).

Over the years, I've gotten quite good at interviews, I've had loads of jobs, my problem has always been keeping them   I get bored, fed up, annoyed, angry and think stuff it!

One thing I would say, if you feel you're not very good at interviews, if you're not sure whether you managed to 'sell yourself', then it might be appropriate for you to send them a brief email or something.

Just thank them for offering you the opportunity to attend the interview.  Say you really enjoyed meeting them and learning what the company had to offer and having a chance to let them know what you had to offer the company.  And then add that you believe your experience of [working in a pressured environment and meeting deadlines at Company X, and your excellent language skills and your abilities to research and pay attention to detail, which you demonstrated at Company Y - or whatever relevant experience you have], make you ideally suited to the job and following your interview you'd be keen to accept a position if they were able to offer you one.

Something along those lines, keep it professional, factual, not pleading for a job!

That would be polite, and also it would refresh their memory about you again during their shortlisting, so even if you didn't manage to make such a strong impression, or if you didn't make such a good job of conveying information about your strong points, they would get the point through the email.  And you would stand out above the other candidates.  Most of them probably wouldn't do that, only some people would.  So it makes you look more interested in the job than some of the candidates and re-emphasises your strengths and suitability for the job.