LA County’s courts expand electronic recording in response to court reporter shortage

L.A. County’s courts are expanding the use of electronic recording in the hopes of addressing a chronic shortage of court reporters.

Samantha P. Jessner, the presiding judge of the Superior Court of L.A. County, signed a general order Thursday that allows this type of transcript in hearings where fundamental rights are at stake and a court reporter isn’t available.

Court leadership described it as a “constitutional safety net,” but the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association (LACCRA) said in a statement that this “hasty decision” will put people at risk of faulty recordings, inaccurate transcripts, and doesn’t guarantee their ability to appeal.

About the general order

The order, which went into effect immediately, allows judges in certain family law, probate, and unlimited civil proceedings to use electronic recording to create a verbatim record under specific circumstances.

Those include:

• If it concerns fundamental or liberty rights
• If it involves significant legal, and/or factual issues
• At least one party wants a verbatim transcript, and they haven’t been able to secure a private court reporter
• A court-employed court reporter isn’t reasonably available 
• And the proceeding should not be further delayed

It’ll be up to each judge’s discretion to request electronic recording on a case-by-case basis.

State law requires court reporters in felony criminal and juvenile cases, and it allows electronic recording in limited civil, misdemeanor criminal, and infraction cases. The L.A. County court order expands the use even further.

What court leadership says

Jessner said the move addresses the constitutional crisis in L.A. County’s courtrooms — the nation’s largest trial system. She added that the crisis is the result of a worsening court reporter shortage and “arbitrary” restrictions on electronic recording.

“It directly impacts the court's ability to meet our mission of providing fair and equal access to justice to all we serve,” Jessner said at a news conference Thursday. “Simply put, no record, no justice.”

She noted that people can hire a private court reporter, which can cost thousands of dollars per day, or delay the proceedings until the court can provide one, which can take weeks or months.

Delay is often not an option in these cases, she said, especially for domestic violence, child custody, and conservatorships.

“Or they can proceed without a transcript, without a record, without a fighting chance on appeal,” Jessner said. “In short, litigants in these courtrooms must pay, delay, or walk away.”

Each one of those options restricts the constitutional right to due process, as well as equal and timely access to justice, she added.

Jessner said the court reporter shortage is growing without an end in sight, and pushed back against any “assertions to the contrary.” She noted that the court has spent nearly $14 million to recruit new hires and retain the court reporters they do have, even starting its own internal training program.

What court reporters say

LACCRA said in a statement that it strongly opposes the efforts to expand electronic recording beyond what is already allowed under state law.

Cindy Tachell, president of LACCRA, told LAist the roughly 200-page general order came as a surprise, and the court didn’t notify them of the change affecting the court reporter workforce.

She said electronic recording is flawed, and isn’t going to produce a record that’s comparable to having a certified court reporter in the room.

“A couple days after the ransomware attack, all the misdemeanor courtrooms used electronic recording and they were shut down,” Tachell said. “They could not get anything done, and court reporters were ready to go to cover everything that the court needed.”

Shanna Gray, vice president of LACCRA, told LAist she worries people won’t understand what’s going on when they come to court, the effect it’ll have on the current court reporters in L.A. County, and the impact on potential applicants.

“I know these things move like a cruise ship, but if you move like a cruise ship, you're not going to get results overnight, which is what they seem to be looking for,” she said. “And then when they didn't get it now, they immediately want to go to electronic recording, which is risky for our litigants.”

Tachell added in a statement that they agree access to justice is the backbone of society, but poor-quality electronic recording threatens that. And they both said there’s still plenty of eager applicants, L.A. County just needs to hire them.

A lawyer’s take

Alphonse Provinziano, a senior trial attorney and certified family law specialist at Provinziano & Associates in Beverly Hills, told LAist the court leadership has accomplished an amazing feat with the order.

Not having a record breaks people’s constitutional rights, he noted, and the only way to ensure that right is to have access to electronic recording.

“We would want nothing more than having court reporters, but if we don't have court reporters, there has to be some solution,” Provinziano said.

Provinziano is a former deputy district attorney in San Bernardino County, where they would use electronic recording for misdemeanor proceedings, and he said it’s a “very efficient way” of handling those hearings.

But with the courtroom acoustics, he noted that everyone has to be aware of the sound and speak directly into the microphone, or else you’re jeopardizing the record.

“But it's the best that we can have, and there'll be procedural ways to deal with those technical glitches and issues,” he said. “I found that in my personal experience, it was satisfactory.”