LA Superior Court to allow electronic recordings

In response to the ongoing shortage of court reporters, the Los Angeles County Superior Court will allow electronic recording of unlimited civil matters, a practice previously prohibited. The union representing court reporters immediately denounced the move, accusing the court of misspending millions of dollars earmarked for reporter recruitment.

Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner announced the general order enacting the new policy in a news conference Thursday, calling the effects of the shortage a "constitutional crisis."

"This constitutional crisis is the result of a worsening and well documented court reporter shortage and arbitrary statutory restrictions on electronic recording," Jessner said. "It directly impacts the court's ability to meet our mission of providing fair and equal access to justice to all we serve. Simply put, no record, no justice."

The general order enables judges presiding over unlimited civil matters, as well as family and probate proceedings, to direct court staff to use electronic recording in certain scenarios.

Requirements for electronic recording include: that the proceedings concern fundamental or liberty rights; that one or more parties wish to have a verbatim recorded record; that no court-employed reporter is available; that a private reporter cannot be hired due to cost; that the case involves issues reasonably necessitating a verbatim record; and that the proceeding should not be delayed in the interests of justice.

At the news conference, Executive Officer and Clerk of Court David W. Slayton said the order follows years of extensive discussion with the county's court reporter union.

"We're hopeful that they will be supportive of the efforts that we've taken today to make sure that individuals who come into court have a constitutional safety net to make sure that they leave with a verbatim record," he said. "As Judge Jessner pointed out, this would only be done when there is not a court employed court reporter available, or even a privately hired court reporter available, so it would only be used in situations where there's not a court reporter available."

In an announcement following the order, however, Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association President Cindy Tachell denounced the move.

"As guardians of the record, court reporters who produce accurate, verbatim transcripts are indispensable to the access to justice all litigants deserve," Tachell said. "We are dismayed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, after failing to invest in a strong court reporter workforce time and again, is now using the court-created crisis to threaten access to quality transcripts. We agree with the court that access to justice is the backbone of our society, and poor-quality, electronic recording threatens that access. The LA Superior Court needs to start working with us to effectively recruit and retain qualified court reporters instead of actively undermining this vital profession."

The union's statement accused the Superior Court of misusing millions of dollars earmarked to address the shortage on recruitment ads that it claimed did little to bring in qualified applicants.

It also pointed to Assembly Bills 3252 and 3013, which the state Legislature passed this year. These bills aim to address the crisis by enabling reporter vacancies to be filled more quickly and allowing certain superior court systems to experiment with remote court reporting, the statement said.

"There is a strong interest in, and future for, court reporting," the statement read. "In fact, with the advent of voice writing, court reporting programs are now at capacity as interest in the profession grows. Other California counties are successfully recruiting and hiring reporters instead of attempting to force the use of potentially faulty and inadequate electronic recording technology."

In an email on Thursday, a representative for the state Judicial Council said it was uninvolved with planning the order.

"Local courts are independent constitutional entities and make their own local operational decisions -- so there was no coordination, consultation, or approval required or provided by the Chief Justice or council staff regarding this decision by the Los Angeles court," the representative said, adding that the council declined to offer further comment.