California's court reporter crisis: Why AB 3252 doesn't go far enough

California's courtrooms are in the grip of a mounting crisis. Court reporters, indispensable to the legal process, are retiring faster than they can be replaced. The resulting shortage has left vital proceedings undocumented and thus unremembered. The California legislature's recent passage of Assembly Bill 3252 was intended as a lifeline: a way to shore up the profession, enhance transparency and maintain the integrity of the official record. While the bill takes measured steps toward addressing workforce attrition, it stops short of offering the solutions this moment requires.

Signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2024, AB 3252 extends the operation of the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) through 2029 and introduces incremental reforms to streamline entry into the profession. Most notably, it now allows certification from the National Verbatim Reporters Association (NVRA) to satisfy the skills portion of the state's Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) exam, even if voice recordings do not use stenography. In addition, the bill mandates that licensed CSRs state their name and license number at the beginning of proceedings, a measure aimed at ensuring transparency and record traceability -- especially in evidentiary hearings and depositions.

These reforms are welcome. In the broader scheme, though, they may be too cautious. California's civil justice system is sinking in a backlog, and the pool of licensed stenographers is too shallow to meet the needs of modern courtrooms. In Los Angeles alone, the number of court-employed reporters has dropped by more than 100 since 2018, despite targeted recruitment efforts and financial incentives. Across the state, hearings in family law, ranging from child custody to domestic violence, routinely proceed without a court reporter present. Without an official transcript, litigants are left with no reliable record of what occurred and thus no recourse.

These are not hypothetical harms. As civil legal services providers have argued in petitions to the California Supreme Court, when a record is missing, so is the possibility of appeal. That is not a matter of convenience: it is a matter of constitutional consequence. Going beyond just the right to be heard, due process requires the ability to ensure that hearing was fair. Equal protection is not satisfied by theoretical access to justice, but by practical participation in the system. When records exist only for those who can afford to hire private stenographers, the constitutional promise of fairness is hollowed out.

That is where AB 3252 falls short. Nowhere in its text does it contemplate a path to licensure for certified digital reporters -- professionals trained by the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) and already serving with distinction in jurisdictions across the country. Digital reporters, equipped with modern recording technology and microphones for each participant, actively monitor and annotate proceedings to ensure accuracy and completeness. Their certification process is rigorous, and their performance is guided by ethical standards and real-time accountability. In many states and in federal proceedings, digital reporters already contribute to upholding the integrity of the judicial record. This omission is particularly puzzling given that California already licenses voice writers, establishing the precedent that professional court reporting encompasses multiple methodologies.

A forward-looking bill would have recognized that legal proceedings are evolving -- not in a way that undermines standards, but in a way that modernizes them. Technology, when paired with professional oversight, enhances accuracy, accelerates turnaround and expands access. Digital systems are more mobile than traditional setups, more reliable in their clarity and consistency and more accessible to a broader pool of professionals. Crucially, they eliminate the need to learn stenography, a barrier that has contributed significantly to declining graduation rates for stenographic programs. Since California already recognizes and licenses voice writers who do not rely on stenography, why is there hesitation on the licensure of digital reporters?

The approval of voice writers shows that professional competence isn't tied to a single method. Digital reporting follows the same logic; it's another professional pathway that produces accurate records without requiring stenographic training. Like voice writing, digital reporting is not simply a supplementary method of capture but a new conduit for the expansion of professional options the state has already embraced.

Some may argue that expanding licensure risks diluting quality, but this assumes California made an error when it licensed voice writers. Method should not be conflated with competence. Digital reporting by certified professionals, following rigorous standards and protocols, delivers the same essential outcomes: accurate, reliable transcripts that serve the legal system's needs for appeal, accountability and truth. In a legal system that depends on transcripts for those needs, the answer should be obvious.

The court reporting shortage is not going away. Even if every CSR training program in the state doubled its output, it would take years to meet demand. Policymakers must look beyond legacy frameworks and embrace qualified professionals wherever they exist. California does not lack solutions -- it lacks the will to recognize them.

In its current form, AB 3252 is a step forward but doesn't open a path to further essential improvements. To fulfill its promise, it should be reshaped to design a system that meets the needs of 21st-century courtrooms. That means licensing digital reporters. That means ensuring every litigant, regardless of income or geography, has access to a reliable, reviewable record. And that means understanding that justice, like the record that preserves it, must be complete.