the courtroom and the later preparation of the record are for the benefit of the court. Without a proper record, for example, a party may not present a complaint for appellate review. See Tex.R.App. P. 34.1. Thus, she argues, a court reporter’s duties are essential to the judicial process. Although the County agrees that the duties of the court reporter are indeed critical to judicial proceedings and require a high degree of skill, it asserts that a court reporter does not exercise discretion in carrying out his or her duties. The County further contends that as Halsey provided the reporter’s record at its request and by contract, it was outside the scope of her official duties to the court. See Hatch v. Davis, 621 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). We agree with Dallas County that when
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorneys fees because the declaratory relief action addressed validity of note and was not used as a mere ploy to recover attorneys fees holding that a court reporter can recover attorneys fees for a suit involving the preparation of a record because the claim was for personal services holding party should have segregated attorneys fees for fraud claim from attorneys fees for contract claim based largely on the difference between the essential elements of each claim holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable holding that attorneys fees are necessaries in a civil suit to recover money or property for the minor