In an attempt to combat the disproportionate harm that the statewide shortage of court reporters is having on low-income litigants, Los Angeles County's chief judge cleared the way Thursday for electronic recording devices to be used in certain family, probate and civil proceedings for the first time.
The order by Chief Judge Samantha P. Jessner, which was challenged by court reporters and their union, is in clear conflict with established state law that explicitly prohibits the use of recording devices in such proceedings. According to Jessner's determination, that law is unconstitutional.
“When such fundamental rights and freedom interests are at stake, the denial of [electronic recording] to litigants who cannot reasonably obtain a [court reporter] “violates the constitutions of the United States and the State of California,” Jessner wrote in his order.
The decision, which applies only to proceedings in which a court reporter is not available to transcribe the record verbatim, is a stunning escalation in a years-long battle between court officials, state lawmakers and unionized labor leaders over what to do about a chronic shortage of court reporters statewide.
Cindy Tachell, a Los Angeles County court reporter and president of the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association, said in an interview with The Times that the order came as a surprise to her organization and will be closely reviewed before the group decides on next steps or legal options.
Shanna Gray, also a county court reporter and vice president of the association, noted that state lawmakers have already rejected proposed legislation that would have made similar changes. She said Los Angeles County officials were acting “in defiance of the will of the legislature.”
State law allows the use of electronic recording devices in some court proceedings, including misdemeanor cases, as they are used in other states and some federal courts. However, it prohibits their use in a number of civil proceedings, including critical cases involving domestic violence restraining orders and child custody disputes.
Meanwhile, courts across California have been unable to hire or retain enough court reporters to cover all the proceedings being conducted. The Los Angeles County Superior Court has offered huge signing bonuses and increased salaries, and launched its own training program. Nevertheless, the court system has seen a net loss of 117 court reporters between 2018 and 2024.
It currently employs 315 journalists, of whom 70% are eligible for retirement.
Courts have tried to alleviate the shortage by assigning the reporters they have to the most serious cases, such as felony trials. But in many other cases (including family law cases) litigants have been told to hire their own reporter on the expensive private market, to ask a county reporter to cover their case by proving they are indigent, or to simply dispense with the reporter.
The result has outraged many legal advocates. Since January 2023, more than 525,000 hearings without a verbatim record have been held in Los Angeles County Superior Court alone. The same is happening across the state.
If litigants do not have a verbatim record of a proceeding, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for them to appeal decisions in their cases, legal experts and advocates say.
Jessner, in his order, said it is legally indefensible for the state to accept electronic recording devices in some matters but not others, thereby denying the right of disproportionately poor and vulnerable people to a verbatim record. He called it “legislative discrimination” that is “not narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling state interest,” which he said would be necessary for such a law to be legitimate.
Indeed, he wrote, “the Court seriously doubts that there is any valid justification for depriving litigants of a verbatim transcript when a technological means is available to provide it.”
Jessner noted that an average of 1,571 county court hearings have been held this year without a word-for-word record each day, which he called “an emergency and a crisis” that cannot be accepted by “any public official dedicated to ensuring justice and access to justice for the residents of Los Angeles County.”
According to Jessner, the decision of whether or not to allow the use of a recording device at a particular hearing will be at the discretion of the judge or judicial officer presiding over the hearing, and several criteria must be met.
The proceeding must involve “fundamental rights or liberty interests” and significant legal or factual issues such that a verbatim record is necessary. At least one party must want a record created and have been unable to obtain or afford a court reporter. The presiding judge must determine that a court reporter is not “reasonably available” and that delaying the hearing would not be in the interests of justice.
During a news conference about the order, Jessner said it will help end the daily violation of due process and equal protection rights of county litigants.
Court officials have been asking state lawmakers for years to change the law and allow electronic recording in such cases. Asked what had suddenly changed to necessitate Jessner’s order, David W. Slayton, executive director of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, cited the same statistic of 1,571 hearings being held on average every day without a record being captured. He said the fact that lawmakers had just concluded another legislative session without addressing the problem pushed the court system to act.
“There is no legislative action available to address this matter, so for us it constitutes an emergency and a crisis, so the court is taking the action it needs to take today,” Slayton said. “Time was really of the essence.”
Jessner sidestepped questions about conversations he may have had about the order with other county court leaders or with top state judges and judicial officials, such as California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.
Cathal Conneely, a spokesman for the Judicial Council of California — which sets state court policy and which Guerrero chairs — said in a statement to The Times that council staff was informed of Jessner’s plans. But Conneely said that “courts are independent constitutional entities and make their own local operating decisions” and that there was “no coordination, consultation or approval required or provided” to Los Angeles County by Guerrero or council staff.
Conneely said the council cannot provide legal advice and declined to comment further.
Tachell and Gray said Los Angeles County maintains stricter testing requirements for court reporters than surrounding counties, which has prevented state-certified court reporters from being hired. They said the county has also implemented ineffective recruitment programs.
A promising source of new applicants, they say, is studying at court reporting schools, attending open houses for job openings and preparing to take the state stenographer exam. And the county should focus on hiring those people rather than relying on electronic devices, which they say are less reliable and prone to errors.
“The concern is not just about job protection,” Gray said. “The concern is for the litigants.”
They also noted that lawmakers took steps this session to address the reporter shortage, with multiple bills awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. One would open up more opportunities for so-called voice writers, or court reporters who speak into a device to capture what is being said rather than typing shorthand notes, and another to allow counties to run pilot programs using remote court reporters.
The Family Violence Appeal Project applauded Jessner for addressing an “access to justice crisis” that regularly harms her clients, including dozens of low- and moderate-income domestic violence survivors whose cases the group was unable to pursue because they lacked a history of prior proceedings.
“These survivors came to us from all corners of the state seeking to overturn court decisions that put them and their children at risk of harm, and we were unable to help them,” the group said.
