Background
The Mississippi Board of Certified Court Reporters petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court to amend Rule V of the Rules and Regulations Governing Certified Court Reporters. Rule V governs temporary permission for noncertified court reporters to perform verbatim reporting in Mississippi.
The amended rule requires an applicant to use the official application forms, pay a $100 fee, prove Mississippi residency, and provide documentation of either qualifying court-reporting experience in another state without certification or licensing requirements or qualifying attendance and testing at a court-reporting program. It also addresses annual renewal and generally limits temporary permission to thirty-six months unless the Board grants an extension under Mississippi Code Section 9-13-121(2).
The Court’s Holding
The Court, sitting en banc, granted the Board’s petition and amended Rule V as set forth in Exhibit A. The amendments took effect immediately, and the clerk was directed to enter the order on the Court’s minutes and forward it for publication in the Mississippi Rules of Court and the Southern Reporter.
The decision was not unanimous. Chief Justice Randolph, Presiding Justice King, and Justices Ishee, Griffis, Sullivan, Branning, Wilson, and Tollison agreed with the order; Presiding Justice Coleman disagreed. The order does not provide an explanation for his disagreement.
Key Takeaways
- Mississippi residency is required for temporary permission to work as a noncertified court reporter.
- Applicants must pay a $100 fee and document qualifying experience or court-reporting education and testing.
- The amendments became effective immediately, with eight justices agreeing and Presiding Justice Coleman disagreeing.
Why It Matters
The order changes the eligibility and documentation requirements for noncertified reporters seeking temporary authority to perform verbatim reporting in Mississippi. Applicants and employers should evaluate temporary-permission requests under the amended rule immediately.
The recorded disagreement also confirms that the en banc Court did not adopt the amendment unanimously, although the order gives no reasoning for the dissenting vote.