Interview scorecard template

Court Reporter interview scorecard

Evaluate Court Reporter candidates across 4 weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check certified speed and accuracy: RPR, CRR or state licensure, tested words per minute on four-voice Q&A, and transcript turnaround under expedited or daily-copy deadlines. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationcat softwarerealtime transcriptionrpr certificationstenography
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate holds RPR or CRR, sustains 225 wpm testimony at 98 percent accuracy, and has never missed a daily-copy delivery. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate builds case-specific dictionaries and briefs before voir dire, and describes a scopist workflow that cut editing hours per transcript. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Execution and reliability

35% weight

Check certified speed and accuracy: RPR, CRR or state licensure, tested words per minute on four-voice Q&A, and transcript turnaround under expedited or daily-copy deadlines.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
  • Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
  • Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
  • Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.

2
Needs Improvement

Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.

5
Excellent

Holds RPR or CRR, sustains 225 wpm testimony at 98 percent accuracy, and has never missed a daily-copy delivery.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Probe how they maintain job dictionaries, briefs for repeated medical or technical terms, and their scoping or proofreading pipeline in Case CATalyst, Eclipse or Stenograph.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has changed a process rather than only following one
  • Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
  • Documents so the improvement survives them
  • Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.

2
Needs Improvement

Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.

3
Satisfactory

Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.

4
Very Good

Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.

5
Excellent

Builds case-specific dictionaries and briefs before voir dire, and describes a scopist workflow that cut editing hours per transcript.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Assess independent calls on the record: interrupting crosstalk, requesting readback, marking exhibits, handling sealed or in-camera portions, and certifying transcripts without supervision.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
  • Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
  • Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
  • Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.

2
Needs Improvement

Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.

3
Satisfactory

Sound judgement on familiar decisions.

4
Very Good

Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.

5
Excellent

Cites specific moments where they stopped proceedings appropriately, and knows exactly when a portion must be sealed or struck.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Look for courtroom and deposition decorum: handling attorneys who talk over witnesses, coordinating with judges and clerks, and explaining rough draft or realtime feed limits.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
  • Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
  • Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
  • Works across time zones or async where the role needs it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.

3
Satisfactory

Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.

4
Very Good

Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.

5
Excellent

Interrupts firmly but respectfully, sets expectations with counsel on delivery dates, and stays neutral with hostile or emotional parties.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Court Reporter

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you briefly explain your previous experience as a court reporter?

  2. 02

    What legal proceedings have you had the opportunity to transcribe?

  3. 03

    Could you explain the most complex proceeding you have transcribed?

  4. 04

    What reporting method do you use?

  5. 05

    What is your typing or transcription speed, and at what accuracy?

See the complete Court Reporter question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards