Shakespeare was right!

"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."  -- Henry VI.

I have never been more in sympathy with William Shakespeare than I am after six days of working on the transcript from a rather hot place down under.  I'm debating at the moment whether it was from Gehenna, Tartarus, or Hades.

It consisted of 296 pages and 32 video clips.

Yes, you read that right.  Thirty-two.  (That sounds more daunting that it actually turned out to be.  A new clip started whenever testimony started or one of the lawyers objected and they needed to conference with the judge.  And I hate to disappoint all fans of Law and Order, but while the lawyers I listened to were very passionate about the side of the case they were arguing, they were also very respectful to each other at end when they were trying to figure out what the order of business was going to be next day.  Anyone listening for a fight on any of the depositions I proof will be sadly disappointed.)

This is the first trial transcript I've ever proofed.  Normally I proof deposition transcripts, where the lawyer for one side talks to a witness from the other side to get their side of the story.  They will then use the information gleaned from those depositions to build a court case for trial.  My depositions run the gamut from malpractice suits to car crashes to suits against nursing homes or assisted living centers.

This particular trial was a civil case that's been going on for some time.

Now, I know that the American legal system is usually a good system.  I know that we need lawyers, and judges, and fair representations.  And I know that proceedings must be put on the record, and since you have to have an accurate record, that is why you have court reporters, and scopists (the people who edit the raw notes from the court reporter) and proofers like me, who make sure everything is spelled, punctuated, and formatted properly.

My problem with this specific transcript was, specifically, the conferences with the judge.

More specifically, the parts of the conferences that I couldn't hear because the lawyers were talking in whispers.

The lawyers were talking in whispers because they were arguing their objections out of the hearing of the jury.  I get that part and it's part of court procedure.

But their conferences were part of the record . . . and if I can't hear what they're saying, I can't just make something up and put it down!

By the end of the second or third day, out of frustration, I downloaded a free video/audio player with a sound booster, hoping that I could use that to clear up some of the things I couldn't hear.

It did help some.  But even with the volume turned up as high as it would go, and even with a sound booster that supposedly boosted volume up to 125%, there were just some times I could not hear what I needed to hear.

(This is why I am against electronic recording replacing a real, live court reporter.  What happens when the recording doesn't pick something up?)

I just finished this job a few minutes ago and sent it to the people I work for, saying that I did the best I could and that I have never been more in sympathy with Shakespeare's admonition, "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

(No lawyers were killed or harmed in the writing of this piece.)

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.