In an effort to combat the disproportionate harm that the statewide shortage of court reporters is causing to low-income litigants, Los Angeles County’s top judge on Thursday cleared the way for the use of electronic recording devices in some family, estate and civil proceedings for the first time.
The order by Superior Court Judge Samantha P. Jessner, denounced by the court reporters and their union, is in flagrant contradiction to current state law, which explicitly prohibits the use of recording devices in such proceedings. Based on Jessner’s decision, 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] “This violates the constitutions of the United States and the State of California,” Jessner wrote in his order.
The ruling, which applies only to proceedings in which a court reporter is not available to transcribe the verbatim record, is a surprising escalation in a years-long battle between court officials, state lawmakers and union 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 Assn., said in an interview with The Times that the order came as a surprise to her organization — and that it would be closely examined before the group decides on next steps or legal options.
Shanna Gray, also a court reporter and vice president of the association, noted that state lawmakers have previously rejected bills 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 certain court proceedings, including misdemeanor criminal cases, as it is used in other states and some federal courts. However, it prohibits their use in a range of civil proceedings, including high-profile cases involving domestic violence protection orders and child custody disputes.
Meanwhile, courts across California have been unable to recruit and retain enough court reporters to cover all the ongoing proceedings. The Los Angeles County Superior Court has offered massive signing bonuses and pay raises and launched its own training program. Still, the court system has seen a net loss of 117 court reporters between 2018 and 2024.
It currently employs 315 journalists, 70% of whom are eligible for retirement.
Courts have tried to address the shortage by assigning the court reporters they have to the most serious cases, such as felony trials. But in many other cases, including family law cases, litigants have been asked to hire their own court reporter on the private market, have a county reporter cover their case by proving they are indigent, or do without one altogether.
The result has outraged many justice advocates. Since January 2023, more than 525,000 hearings have been held without verbatim transcripts in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The same is happening across the state.
If litigants don’t have a verbatim record of a proceeding, it can be difficult or impossible for them to appeal decisions in their case, legal experts and advocates say.
In her order, Jessner said it was legally indefensible for the state to allow electronic recording devices in some cases and not in others — depriving particularly poor and vulnerable people of their right to a verbatim record. She called it “legislative discrimination” that is “not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest,” which she said would be necessary for such a law to be legitimate.
In fact, she wrote, “the Court seriously doubts that there is any valid justification for depriving litigants of a verbatim transcript when a technological means of providing one is available.”
Jessner noted that an average of 1,571 county court hearings have been conducted without verbatim records each day this year — something she called an “emergency and crisis” that cannot be accepted by “any public official dedicated to ensuring justice and access to justice for the residents of Los Angeles County.”
The decision whether to allow a recording device during a given hearing will be left to the discretion of the judge or presiding judge, Jessner said. And several criteria will have to be met.
The proceeding must involve “fundamental rights or liberty interests” and substantial legal or factual issues that justify the need for a verbatim record. At least one party must want a record prepared and have been unable to obtain or afford the services of 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.
At a news conference about the order, Jessner said it would help end the daily violation of the county’s due process and equal protection rights.
For years, court officials have been asking state lawmakers to change the law and allow electronic recording in such cases. Asked what suddenly changed to necessitate Jessner’s order, David W. Slayton, executive director of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, cited the same statistic that an average of 1,571 hearings are held each day without any recording. He said the fact that lawmakers just ended yet another legislative session without addressing the issue has spurred the court system to act.
“There is no legislation to address this issue, which is an emergency and a crisis for us, and that is why the court is taking the necessary action today,” Slayton said. “Really, time was of the essence.”
Jessner dodged questions about conversations she 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 policy for the state’s courts and which Guerrero chairs, said in a statement to the Times that the council’s staff had been briefed on Jessner’s plans. But Conneely said that “the courts are independent constitutional entities and make their own local operational decisions,” and that no “coordination, consultation or approval was required or provided” to Los Angeles County by Guerrero or the council’s staff.
Conneely noted that the council was not authorized to offer legal advice and declined to comment further.
Tachell and Gray said Los Angeles County has stricter testing requirements for court reporters than surrounding counties, which has prevented the hiring of state-certified reporters. They also said the county has ineffective hiring programs.
Many of the new applicants are studying at court reporting schools, attending open houses to explore job openings and preparing to take the state stenographer exam, they said. And the county should focus on hiring those people instead of turning to electronic devices, which they say are less reliable and prone to errors.
“The concern is not just job protection,” Gray said. “The concern is for the complainants.”
They also noted that lawmakers have taken steps this session to address the shortage of reporters, with several bills awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. One would open up more opportunities for so-called voice reporters — or court reporters who speak into a device to capture what is being said rather than typing stenographic notes — and another to allow counties to run pilot programs using remote court reporters.
The Family Violence Appellate Project praised Jessner for addressing an “access to justice crisis” that regularly harms its clients, including dozens of low- and moderate-income domestic violence survivors whose cases the group has been unable to pursue because they lack records of prior proceedings.
“These survivors came to us from across the state trying to overturn court decisions that put them and their children in danger, and we couldn’t help,” the group said.
