Los Angeles County’s top judge clears way for electronic court records despite state law

In an effort to prevent the disproportionate harm a statewide court reporter shortage is doing to low-income litigants, Los Angeles County’s top judge on Thursday cleared the way for the first-ever use of electronic recording devices in certain family, probate and civil cases.

The order by Supreme Court Justice Samantha P. Jessner, which has been condemned by court reporters and their union, clearly contradicts established state laws that explicitly bar the use of recording devices in such cases. The law, Jessner found, is unconstitutional.

“When such fundamental rights and liberties are at stake, the failure to provide (electronic records) to litigants who cannot reasonably obtain (the court clerk) violates the constitutions of the United States and the State of California,” Jessner wrote in his order.

The ruling, which applies only to cases where the court reporter was unable to transcribe the transcript verbatim, is a staggering increase. A struggle that lasted for years Opinions have divided among court officials, state lawmakers and union labor leaders over what to do about a chronic court reporter shortage statewide.

Cindy Tachell, the Los Angeles County Court Reporter and president of the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association, told The Times in an interview that the order came as a surprise to her organization and that the group will review the order closely before deciding on the next step or legal options.

Shanna Gray, a county court reporter and vice president of the association, noted that state legislators have already rejected proposed laws that would have made similar changes. She said Los Angeles County officials were acting “against the will of the legislature.”

State law allows electronic recording devices to be used in some court proceedings, including minor criminal cases, as they are used in other states and some federal courts. But it prohibits their use in a number of civil cases, including critical cases involving domestic violence restraining orders and child custody disputes.

Meanwhile, courts across California have been unable to hire and retain enough court reporters to cover all the cases taking place. The Los Angeles County Superior Court has offered large signing bonuses and pay raises and has launched its own training program. Still, the court system recorded a net loss of 117 court reporters between 2018 and 2024.

Currently, 315 reporters are employed and 70 percent of them have retirement rights.

Courts have tried to address this gap by assigning the court reporters they have to the most serious cases, such as felony cases. But in many other cases — including family law cases — litigants are told to hire their own court reporters on the expensive private market, prove they are indigent and apply for a county reporter to cover their case, or simply go without.

The result has outraged many legal advocates. Since January 2023, more than 525,000 hearings have taken place in L.A. County Superior Court alone without full records. The same thing is happening all over the state.

Legal experts and attorneys say it can be difficult, if not impossible, for plaintiffs to appeal decisions in their cases if they do not have full transcripts of the proceedings.

Jessner said in his order that it was legally indefensible for the state to allow electronic recording devices in some cases and not in others, meaning that disproportionately poor and vulnerable people are denied access to full records in the process. He called it a “legislative discrimination” that was “not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest” and said that would be necessary for such a law to be legitimate.

In fact, he wrote, “The Court seriously doubts that there is any valid justification for depriving plaintiffs of the full transcript when a readily available technological tool exists.”

Jessner said an average of 1,571 county court hearings are being conducted without minutes being kept each day this year, an “emergency and a crisis that cannot be accepted by any public servant dedicated to providing justice and access to justice to Los Angeles County residents.”

Whether a recording device is allowed at any given hearing will be at the discretion of the judge or presiding judicial officer, Jessner said, and several criteria will need to be met.

The proceeding must involve “fundamental rights or liberties interests” and significant legal or factual issues for which a complete record is necessary. At least one party must request that a record be produced and must be unable or unwilling to provide 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 interests of justice.

Jessner said at a news conference about the decision that the ruling will help end the daily violation of the district plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection.

Court officials have been asking state legislatures for years to change the law and allow electronic records in such cases. Asked what had suddenly changed to prompt Jessner’s order, David W. Slayton, chief justice of the L.A. County Superior Court, cited the same statistic of an average of 1,571 hearings each day without records. He said the court system was prompted to take action by legislatures that had ended another legislative session without addressing the issue.

“There is no current legislative action to address this issue and this constitutes an emergency and a crisis for us, which is why the court is taking the action it needs to take today,” Slayton said. “Really, time was of the essence.”

Jessner did not respond to questions about conversations she may have had about the order with other county court leaders or top state judges and judicial officials such as California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.

Cathal Conneely, a spokesman for the California Judicial Council — which sets state court policy and is chaired by Guerrero — told The Times that the council’s staff had been made aware of Jessner’s plans. But Conneely said that “courts are independent constitutional entities and make their own local operational decisions” and that “no coordination, consultation or approval was required or provided” to L.A. County by Guerrero or council staff.

Conneely declined to comment further, saying the council was prevented from providing legal advice.

Tachell and Gray said L.A. County has stricter testing requirements for court reporters than surrounding counties, which hinders the hiring of state-certified reporters. They also said the county has ineffective hiring programs.

A promising pipeline of new applicants is training at court reporting schools, attending open hearings about job openings and preparing to take the state reporting exam, they said. And the county should focus on hiring those people rather than turning to electronic devices, which they say are less reliable and prone to error.

“The concern is not just job protection,” Gray said. “The concern is for plaintiffs.”

They also noted that lawmakers have taken action this session to address the reporter shortage, with several bills awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature. One would create more opportunities for so-called voice writers — or court reporters who speak into a device to record what is said rather than typing abbreviated notes — and another would allow counties to run pilot programs using remote court reporters.

The Domestic Violence Appeals Project commended Jessner for addressing the “access to justice crisis” that routinely afflicts her clients, including dozens of low- and moderate-income domestic violence victims whose cases they were unable to pursue because they had not previously been prosecuted.

“These victims came to us from every corner of the state to overturn court orders that put them and their children at risk, and we failed to help them,” the group said.

This story was first published on: Los Angeles Times.