L.A. County’s top judge clears way for electronic recording in courts, despite state law
In an attempt to combat the disproportionate harm that a statewide court reporter shortage is having on low-income litigants, Los Angeles County’s top judge cleared the way Thursday for electronic recording devices to be used in certain family, probate and civil proceedings for the first time.
Superior Court Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner’s order, denounced by court reporters and their union, is in clear conflict with established state law that explicitly precludes the use of recording devices in such proceedings. Based on Jessner’s determination, that law is unconstitutional.
“Where such fundamental rights and liberty interests are at stake, the denial of [electronic recording] to litigants who cannot reasonably secure a [court reporter] violates the constitutions of the United States and the State of California,” Jessner wrote in her order.
The decision, which applies only to proceedings where a court reporter is unavailable to transcribe the verbatim record, is a surprising escalation in a years-long battle among court officials, state lawmakers and unionized labor leaders over what to do about a chronic shortage of court reporters statewide.
Cindy Tachell, a working L.A. 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 will be reviewed closely before the group decides on next steps or legal options.
Shanna Gray, also a working county court reporter and the association’s vice president, noted that state lawmakers have already rejected proposed legislation that would have made similar changes. She said L.A. County officials were acting “in defiance of the legislature’s will.”
State law allows for electronic recording devices to be used in some court proceedings, including in misdemeanor criminal cases, just as they are used in other states and in some federal courts. However, it bars their use in a slate of civil proceedings, including in critically important cases involving domestic violence restraining orders and child custody disputes.
Meanwhile, courts up and down California have been unable to recruit and retain enough court reporters to cover all of the proceedings that are occurring. Los Angeles County Superior Court has offered massive signing bonuses and increased salaries and launched its own training program. Nonetheless the court system recorded a net loss of 117 court reporters between 2018 and 2024.
It currently employs 315 reporters, 70% of whom are eligible for retirement.
Courts have tried to triage the shortage by assigning the court reporters they do have to the most serious cases, such as felony trials. But in many other instances — including in family law cases — litigants have been told to hire their own court reporter from the expensive private market, to apply for a county reporter to cover their case by proving they are indigent, or to simply go without.
The result has outraged many legal advocates. Since January 2023, more than 525,000 hearings occurred without a verbatim record in L.A. County Superior Court alone. The same thing is happening all 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.
Proceedings in domestic violence, child custody and other cases routinely go without transcripts amid a court staffing shortage and a law that bars electronic recordings.
Jessner, in her order, said it is legally indefensible for the state to accept electronic recording devices in some matters but not in others — denying the rights of disproportionately poor and vulnerable people to a verbatim record in the process. She called it “legislative discrimination” that is “not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest,” which she said would be required 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 ready technological means for providing one is available.”
Jessner noted that an average of 1,571 county court hearings have been conducted without a verbatim record each day this year — which she called “an emergency and a crisis” that cannot be accepted by “any public official dedicated to securing justice, and access to justice, to the residents of Los Angeles County.”
Whether a recording device is allowed in any given hearing will be at the discretion of the judge or presiding judicial officer, Jessner said. And several criteria will have to 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 of the parties must want a record to be created and have been unable to secure or afford a court reporter. The presiding officer must determine that a court reporter is not “reasonably available” and that delaying the hearing would not be in the interest of justice.
During a news conference on the order, Jessner said it will help end the daily violation of county litigants’ due process and equal protection rights.
Court officials have been asking state lawmakers to change the law and allow for electronic recording in such cases for years. Asked what has suddenly changed to necessitate Jessner’s order, David W. Slayton, L.A. County Superior Court’s executive officer, cited the same statistic of 1,571 hearings occurring on average daily without a record being captured. He said the fact that lawmakers just concluded yet another legislative session without addressing the problem pushed the court system to act.
“There is no legislative action that’s available to address this issue, and so that constitutes for us an emergency and a crisis, which is why the court’s taking the action it needs to do 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 state court policy and which Guerrero chairs — said in a statement to The Times that council staff were told of Jessner’s plans. But Conneely said “courts are independent constitutional entities and make their own local operational decisions,” and there was “no coordination, consultation, or approval required or provided” to L.A. County by Guerrero or council staff.
Conneely noted the council is precluded from offering legal advice and declined to comment further.
Tachell and Gray said L.A. County maintains stricter testing requirements for court reporters than surrounding counties, which have precluded state certified reporters from being hired. They said the county has also run ineffective recruitment programs.
A promising pipeline of new applicants is studying at court reporter schools, attending open houses about job openings and preparing to take the state reporter exam, they said. And the county should be focused on hiring those people instead of turning to electronic devices — which they said are less reliable and prone to mistakes.
“The concern is not simply job protection,” Gray said. “The concern is for the litigants.”
They also noted that legislators did take action this session to address the shortage of reporters, with multiple bills awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. One would open more opportunities for so-called voice writers — or court reporters who speak into a device to capture what is being said rather than typing out shorthand notes — and another to allow counties to run pilot programs using remote court reporters.
The Family Violence Appellate Project applauded 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 could not pursue because they lacked a record of earlier proceedings.
“These survivors came to us from every corner of the state seeking to overturn court decisions that put them and their children at risk of harm, and we could not help them,” the group said.
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
