When I was a broke undergraduate student, I worked at a transcription company. As a Quality Analyst (QA), my job entailed reviewing fully typed transcripts, ensuring adherence to the company’s style guide, as well as fixing typos and grammatical errors.

Before taking on this job, I was unaware of the editing conventions of the industry — knowledge that would have served me well. Thankfully, there was some brief on-the-job training that made me realize the many formalities of the legal world. Legal documents demand absolute accuracy to avoid legal repercussions, so I was forced to pore over texts with a newfound thoroughness. I found myself neck-deep in the editing process. Accuracy of information was not the only requirement — the court reporting firm had their own rigid style guide, subject to change. Capitalization preferences changed on a whim. Having two spaces after every period and accepting only “straight” quotes as legitimate were crucial, as lawyers loathe “smart” quotes.

As a transcript reviewer, research was an important element of the editing process. Perfect grammar was never enough. Doctors with uncommon names were often mentioned in recordings, which transcribers sometimes simply typed out phonetically. I frequently had to check databases to confirm spellings. When the name of a lawyer was spelled two different ways on a case sheet, I checked the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) database.

One of the unexpected lessons I learned? Editing while exhausted is a bad idea. Before copyediting for an actual job, I had more faith in my ability to review a document while running on five cups of coffee. I can now say with confidence that reviewing a document multiple times is not an act of paranoia⁠ — it’s a necessary process every editor must undergo.