How to Value a Court Reporting Firm in 2026

Court reporting is the most actively consolidated category in legal services, and it has been for the better part of a decade. When I model a court reporting firm today, I'm essentially running two valuations in parallel — a financial-buyer case and a strategic-buyer case — because the difference between them is usually two to three turns of EBITDA, and it's almost always the strategic buyer that sets the clearing price.

If you own a court reporting firm and you've been hearing from buyers, the conversation you're having is not really about your P&L. It's about your reporter roster, your top client list, and how much of your work is being captured by digital versus stenographic methods. Here's how the math actually works.

Where Court Reporting Multiples Land in 2026

Sub-$500K SDE practices — typically solo or small firms with one or two reporters — trade at 2.0-2.8x SDE. The buyer pool is narrow, mostly other reporters consolidating a local market.

$500K-$2M EBITDA regional firms with established AmLaw or insurance-defense client relationships trade at 4.5-6.5x adjusted EBITDA. These are the most frequently transacted deals and the core of the consolidation activity.

$2M+ EBITDA multi-market platforms with national coverage, a strong reporter roster, and recurring AmLaw relationships trade at 7-10x EBITDA. These are the platform deals the big consolidators want, and the competitive tension between them tends to push pricing to the upper end of that range.

The single biggest driver of where you land inside these ranges is whether your firm has a defensible recurring revenue stream from approved-vendor relationships at large law firms or insurance carriers.

Who Is Buying Court Reporting Firms

The consolidation map in this space is dominated by a handful of PE-backed platforms that have been active for years. Understanding who they are matters, because the outreach you get will come from one of them.

Veritext Legal Solutions is the largest player by far, owned by Leonard Green & Partners since 2018. Veritext has completed well over 100 tuck-in acquisitions and is the default benchmark for pricing in the category. They tend to pay 5-7x EBITDA for clean regional firms and 8-10x for true platforms.

US Legal Support is the next-largest platform, active across court reporting, record retrieval, and related services. They've been an aggressive acquirer through multiple ownership cycles.

Lexitas is backed by AEA Investors and has been one of the most acquisitive platforms in the last five years, with a particular focus on integrating court reporting with legal talent services.

Esquire Deposition Solutions is a long-standing national platform with a strong AmLaw client base. They're selective but pay well for quality.

Planet Depos focuses on international and complex depositions and tends to acquire firms with similar specialization.

Magna Legal Services combines court reporting with trial consulting and jury research and has been active in the tuck-in market.

Reporter Roster Is Half the Valuation

In traditional court reporting M&A, the single most-diligenced asset is the reporter roster. Stenographic reporters are scarce. National certification pipelines have dried up, experienced steno reporters are aging out, and no buyer believes the supply situation is going to improve.

When a consolidator values your firm, they're essentially valuing three things: the client list, the reporter roster, and the operational infrastructure that connects them. A firm with 25 steady 1099 reporters — especially ones with realtime and CART certifications — is significantly more valuable than a firm with twice the revenue but a thinner bench.

I've seen buyers walk from deals where the reporter roster turned out to be concentrated around two or three individuals who had no contractual relationship with the firm. Before going to market, get your reporter agreements in writing, confirm non-solicitation language where legal, and make sure your roster can't walk out the door the day after closing.

The Digital Reporting Question

The growth of digital reporting has changed the valuation conversation in a meaningful way. Firms that rely heavily on stenographers for every proceeding face a capacity ceiling tied to the available reporter pool. Firms that have successfully integrated digital reporting — with trained digital operators and AI-assisted transcription workflows — have a scalability story buyers will pay for.

That said, the big AmLaw firms and many state courts still have strong preferences for stenographic reporting for high-stakes matters. The most valuable firms in 2026 are the ones that can credibly deliver both and are transparent about which method is being used for which matter.

Calculating Adjusted EBITDA

Common add-backs on a court reporting P&L include:

• Owner compensation normalized to a $150K-$200K regional GM equivalent.
• Family-member payroll at above-market rates, normalized or removed.
• Personal travel and entertainment booked as client development.
• One-time technology spend on realtime platforms, remote deposition software, and transcription tools.
• Office space rationalization — many firms are still paying for oversized offices from the pre-remote-deposition era.

A $6M-revenue regional firm with a messy P&L typically surfaces $400K-$700K of legitimate add-backs during a pre-sale quality-of-earnings review. That's $2M-$4M of enterprise value at a 5.5x multiple — real money that disappears if you go to market without doing the work.

What Destroys Court Reporting Firm Value

Thin reporter bench. A firm dependent on three or four senior reporters with no contractual ties is valued at a steep discount, regardless of the revenue line.

Single dominant client. A top client at 35%+ of revenue caps your multiple and typically pulls an earn-out into the structure.

No remote deposition capability. Any firm without a credible remote deposition workflow is behind the market in 2026. Buyers assume they'll have to integrate you onto their own platform and discount accordingly.

Messy WIP and aged receivables. Transcript work-in-process and slow-paying law firm receivables are the two biggest purchase price adjustment items in these deals. Clean them up before a buyer sees them.

Preparing for a Sale

Start 18 months out. Lock down your reporter roster with written agreements and reasonable restrictive covenants. Diversify the client list so no customer is more than 20-25% of revenue. Get your remote deposition stack in order with a credible platform partnership. Invest in clean financial reporting and quarterly reviews. And quietly start conversations with two or three of the platforms so you understand who's most interested before you commit to a formal process.

The Bottom Line

Court reporting remains one of the most attractive consolidation stories in legal services. The platforms are well capitalized, the strategic logic is durable, and the multiples for quality firms have held up even in a choppy financing environment. But the gap between a well-prepared firm and an average one is massive in this category. The owners who do the 18-24 month work before going to market consistently clear two to three full turns of EBITDA more than those who don't.