Who Really Has the Authority to Swear in Witnesses? The Notary vs. Court Reporter Divide

By stenoimperium on September 9, 2025

In the debate over stenographic court reporters versus digital recording, one question keeps surfacing—sometimes in the comments section of articles, sometimes in hushed side conversations at legal seminars: how can digital reporters administer an oath?

It sounds like a small technicality, but it cuts right to the foundation of legal proceedings. The act of swearing in a witness is not ceremonial—it is what gives testimony its binding legal weight. And here’s the reality: the way notaries and court reporters swear in witnesses could not be more different, and that difference exposes one of the biggest cracks in the digital reporting model.

The Notary’s Role - Identity Verification Above All

A commissioned notary public is not a court officer. Their job is to authenticate documents and signatures for use in commerce, real estate, banking, or even government paperwork. To protect against fraud, the law requires notaries to:

• Check identification of every signer or witness they swear in.

• Log the event in a notary journal—documenting the date, type of act, ID used, and often requiring a thumbprint.

• Affix their seal and signature as a guarantee that the person who signed or swore was, in fact, who they claimed to be.

The emphasis is on identity verification. The notary is not certifying the truth of the statement, but rather certifying the identity of the person making it.

If a notary fails to log an oath or improperly identifies someone, the entire notarization can be challenged, voided, or even prosecuted as fraud. The system depends on paperwork, recordkeeping, and adherence to technical requirements.

The Court Reporter’s Role - An Officer of the Court

A licensed stenographic court reporter occupies an entirely different role. By statute in nearly every state, reporters are officers of the court. That designation is not honorary. It means the reporter is vested with the authority to administer oaths without needing to check IDs, log entries, or keep a separate journal.

Why? Because the legal framework around court proceedings assumes a structure that notarial work does not. Attorneys appear on the record. Judges oversee proceedings. Parties and witnesses are introduced formally, and their presence is documented within the transcript itself. If there is ever a question about identity, the adversarial system has mechanisms to handle it: an attorney can object, a judge can order verification, or the record can be clarified in real time.

The reporter’s focus is not on proving identity—it’s on preserving an accurate, verbatim record of what was said, under oath, in that moment. The legitimacy of the oath flows not from paperwork, but from the reporter’s statutory authority and the court’s recognition of their role.

Where Digital Recording Falls Apart

This is precisely where digital reporting creates a mess. A digital “reporter” is often just a person running recording equipment. They are not officers of the court. They do not have statutory authority to administer oaths. To get around that, some digital operators hold notary commissions, and swear in witnesses under notary authority.

That should, in theory, require them to:

• Check ID for every witness.

• Log every oath in a notary journal.

• Follow all notarial rules, which may not even be designed for litigation contexts.

But here’s the problem: are they actually doing it?

Talk to attorneys, court staff, or even witnesses, and you’ll hear the same story over and over. Digital reporters don’t ask for IDs. They don’t keep notary journals in the middle of depositions. They don’t log every oath. They administer oaths as though they were court reporters—but without the statutory authority or oversight that court reporters have.

That’s not just sloppy—it’s legally precarious. If testimony is sworn by someone without proper authority, or without compliance with notarial law, the validity of that testimony can be challenged. Imagine a case where critical deposition testimony is later attacked because the digital operator failed to meet notarial requirements. That’s not a minor issue. That’s grounds for mistrial, sanctions, or exclusion of evidence.

Why the Distinction Matters

Some people shrug and say: “Well, if a notary can swear someone in, why not a digital reporter?” But that misses the point entirely. Court reporters don’t need to follow notary procedures because they are covered under a different legal authority altogether. Their authority is self-contained within the court system.

Digital operators can’t just slide into that role. If they’re relying on notary commissions, they must follow all the notary rules, not cherry-pick the convenient parts. That means every witness should be treated like a notarization at the DMV—IDs checked, logs maintained, seals affixed. Yet that would grind legal proceedings to a halt. It’s impractical, and it’s why the system was never designed that way.

The distinction is not bureaucratic nitpicking. It’s about protecting the integrity of testimony. An oath is only as strong as the authority of the person administering it. Court reporters have that authority. Digital recorders, unless they meet every notary requirement, often do not.

The Risk to Attorneys

Attorneys who consent to digital reporters may not realize the potential trap they’re walking into. If opposing counsel later challenges the validity of an oath administered by a digital operator who failed to check IDs or keep a journal, that testimony could be compromised.

This isn’t alarmism—it’s a real vulnerability. The more courts and lawyers tolerate shortcuts, the more likely it is that some future case will implode over this very issue.

If you’re an attorney, ask yourself: would you want to risk your star witness’s testimony being thrown out because the person running the recording machine didn’t bother to log their ID in a notary journal?

Stronger Oversight Is Needed

State bars, judicial councils, and boards of court reporters need to confront this head-on. The public assumes that every deposition or hearing is conducted with proper legal safeguards. But if digital firms are cutting corners on something as fundamental as an oath, then litigants are being misled into believing their testimony is binding when it may not be.

One solution would be for states to explicitly prohibit digital operators from swearing in witnesses unless they are licensed court reporters. Another would be to demand strict compliance with notarial law whenever digital operators are used—though that would slow proceedings and reveal the impracticality of the model.

Either way, the status quo—pretending the issue doesn’t exist—is not sustainable.

Conclusion

The question of how digital reporters administer an oath is not a technicality. It’s a fault line. Court reporters swear witnesses under court authority. Notaries swear witnesses under identity verification law. Digital reporters fit neither model neatly, and in practice, they often skip the safeguards required of notaries.

That should alarm anyone who cares about the integrity of legal proceedings. An oath is sacred in the justice system—it is what binds words to truth, under penalty of perjury. If we dilute that by allowing people with no statutory authority, or people cutting corners on notary law, to administer oaths, we erode the very foundation of testimony.

This isn’t about protecting “turf” for court reporters. It’s about protecting the system itself. If testimony is to mean anything, the oath must be administered properly. And right now, only one group of professionals is truly equipped and authorized to do that: licensed court reporters.

StenoImperium Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

• The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

• Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.