Cambridge Transcriptions

Our policy is to work with our customers to correct any inaccuracies or misidentifications, and attempted to do so with Ms** However, she demanded that we make changes to the transcript which did not conform with what could be heard on the audio recording As an Approved Court Transcriber, we can only certify transcripts which we can confirm match the audio we were provided Because we would not alter the transcript to meet her wishes, Ms** falsely accused us of illegally tampering with the transcription process and of working with her opponents Because of her belligerence and her continued demands and accusations, we chose to stop working with Ms** We did not charge her, nor did we provide her with a certified transcript We returned the audio CDs to her and suggested she choose another transcription service from the Court's approved list If Ms** submitted our work product to the Court as if it were a certified transcript, she did so fraudulently, without compensating us for our work, and without our consent We are not responsible for the consequences thereof Ms*** continued accusation that we worked with her opponent to alter her transcript is untrue and offensive Submitted by [redacted] ***, PresidentCambridge Transcriptions

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Mr [redacted] is belated in response and did not address my concerns.1) Mr [redacted] did not explain why his second transcriptionist corrected 20+ significant errors (in minutes of hearing) with my finding them one at a time With so numerous errors the service should take over the correction and instantly apologize There was no apology.2) The errors were not audio related and a few seemed clerical, but they altered legal significance of the court caseIn contrast, there was no alteration in the opponent's speech and only one of the judge's (that contradicted docketed outcome, and made little sense).3) I was rushed because I perceived my deadline was imminent, but with a longer lead time I found 10+ more errors The service did not correct errors if I did not notice; this is not regular business practice 4) The opponent is a big company that is able to influence small business like Mr***'s This experience shows that a business adjunct to judicial process – whose service directly impacts court decisions – can use higher regulatory oversight It is important that court transcription be accurately produced for consumers Attached: Proof: Email correspondence with Cambridge Transcriptions' second transcriptionist (who corrected 20+ errors) Optional references: Transcriptions with correction marks over originals Statistics on transcription errors by category NOTE: Audio files are available upon request Regards, [redacted] **

Ms. ** was never charged, nor did she receive a certified transcript from Cambridge Transcriptions. We attempted to work with Ms. ** to provide a transcript to her satisfaction, but she made continued demands that we change the transcript in ways that we could not confirm from the audio. When we informed her that we could not make the requested change, she accused us of colluding with her opponent. She continues to make this baseless and insulting charge. We suggested she work with a different certified transcriber. It bears repeating: we never charged Ms. **, she never paid us, and we never issued a certified transcript related to her case

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted].
Mr. [redacted] is belated in response and did not address my concerns.1)      Mr. [redacted] did not explain why his second transcriptionist corrected 20+ significant errors (in 30 minutes of hearing) with my finding them one at a time.  With so numerous errors the service should take over the correction and instantly apologize.  There was no apology.2)      The errors were not audio related and a few seemed clerical, but they altered legal significance of the court case. In contrast, there was no alteration in the opponent's speech and only one of the judge's (that contradicted docketed outcome, and made little sense).3)      I was rushed because I perceived my deadline was imminent, but with a longer lead time I found 10+ more errors.  The service did not correct errors if I did not notice; this is not regular business practice.  4)      The opponent is a big company that is able to influence small business like Mr. [redacted]'s.  This experience shows that a business adjunct to judicial process – whose service directly impacts court decisions – can use higher regulatory oversight.  It is important that court transcription be accurately produced for consumers.   Attached:            Proof:   Email correspondence with Cambridge Transcriptions' second transcriptionist (who                          corrected 20+ errors).             Optional references:    Transcriptions with correction marks over originals.                                             Statistics on transcription errors by category.            NOTE: Audio files are available upon request. 
Regards,
[redacted]

1.        Our policy is to work with our customers to correct any inaccuracies or misidentifications, and attempted to do so with Ms. **.   However, she demanded that we make changes to the transcript which did not conform with what could be heard on the...

audio recording.  As an Approved Court Transcriber, we can only certify transcripts which we can confirm match the audio we were provided. 2.       Because we would not alter the transcript to meet her wishes, Ms. ** falsely accused us of illegally tampering with the transcription process and of working with her opponents.  Because of her belligerence and her continued demands and accusations, we chose to stop working with Ms. **.  We did not charge her, nor did we provide her with a certified transcript.  We returned the audio CDs to her and suggested she choose another transcription service from the Court's approved list. 3.       If Ms. ** submitted our work product to the Court as if it were a certified transcript, she did so fraudulently, without compensating us for our work, and without our consent.  We are not responsible for the consequences thereof. 4.       Ms. [redacted] continued accusation that we worked with her opponent to alter her transcript is untrue and offensive.  Submitted by [redacted], PresidentCambridge Transcriptions