Court Reporter vs Monitor
<p>My understanding is that a Court Reporter is a person who is present at the proceeding and 'types' what is said and that a Court Monitor is a person who records what is said via electronic/digital equipment.</p>
<p>What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?<br />
Are there any statistics showing the numbers/percentages of which of each is used?<br />
Are there trends towards one or the other?</p>

<p>Usually, there is not a Court Monitor. Instead, the judge or the court clerk activates a pre-installed audio recording system without professional assistance.</p>
<p>It is generally easier to make a more accurate transcription when you are in the moment of the parties speaking, both because the quality of what you hear is better than a typical recording of a court proceeding, and because a court reporter benefits from visual cues that result from seeing the person speaking that are not present in a recording.</p>
<p>But, it is much less expensive to record a court proceeding and if the probability of the court proceeding needing to be formally transcribed for an appeal or other purposes is low, it is cost effective to use a recording instead.</p>

court