Each week, the Law.com Barometer newsletter, powered by the ALM Global Newsroom and Legalweek, brings you the trends, disruptions, and shifts our reporters and editors are tracking through coverage spanning every beat and region across the ALM Global Newsroom. The micro-topic coverage will not only help you navigate the changing legal landscape but also prepare you to discuss these shifts with thousands of legal leaders at Legalweek 2023, taking place March 20-23, 2023 in New York City. Registration is now open. Secure your ticket today.

The Shift: Simmering Court Reporter Shortage Debate Boils Over in California

A hotly contested debate over the causes of a court reporter shortage—and how to address it—has led to public court reporting services grinding to a halt for some cases in one California court system. 

Los Angeles County Superior Court announced in August that it would no longer staff proceedings with court reporters in cases where they are not legally mandated. 

Court officials have said retirements, departures of reporters to the private sector and a lack of new entrants to the profession have resulted in a dearth of available candidates. Advocates for court reporters say the news of shortages are exaggerated and are the result of low pay rates in impacted markets.

The California trial court’s decision and responses from the court reporting industry and lawmakers could signal how other jurisdictions respond to a scarcity of candidates. 

The Conversation

Presiding Judge Eric Taylor of Los Angeles County Superior Court notified court staff in an Aug. 24 email that all court reporter services would be funneled to felony and juvenile matters.

“Court leadership is acutely aware of the significant role of court reporters in the justice system and acknowledges that eliminating this service in non-mandated case types will be difficult and expensive for attorneys, clients, self-represented litigants, judicial officers, court reporters, and other staff,” Taylor wrote. “I assure you that we have done everything within [our] control to avert this change and, frankly, delay the inevitable.”

In a Nov. 2 joint news release, 54 California court executives affirmed that “there is no one to hire,” calling the shortage of court reporters a “crisis.” The court CEOs said funding is not a solution. “The Legislature provides $30 million annually to the California courts to hire

additional court reporters, with a focus on family law and civil courtrooms,” the press release said. “However, because of the decline in court reporters, the crisis continues.”

The lack of a budgetary issue is one aspect that the court leaders and several Democrat state lawmakers agree on. In a Nov. 2 op-ed, state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, Assemblyman Miguel Santiago and Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer said the roughly $5 million funds lawmakers allocated “went unused last fiscal year” and the Legislature broadened this year’s budget language to make clear “we wanted to expand this pool of court reporter into family law—not reduce it.”

“We believe the L.A. County Superior Court’s Aug. 24th announcement to remove official court reporters due to a lack of applicants who want this work is inauthentic and misleading,” they wrote. “There are plenty of professional court reporters looking for stable, high-quality jobs. It’s up to the L.A. County Superior Court to recruit and hire the people needed for these services.”

Court reporters labor unions and associations have also said there are plenty of reporters to choose from. In a Nov. 8 news release, National Court Reporters Association leadership said claims of a court reporter shortage are often a matter of geography and low pay rates. “When courthouses pay and offer benefits competitively, they become fully staffed, and litigants are not faced with the choice of paying market rates to have the best system available or rely upon what the courthouse is willing to provide for keeping the record,” said NCRA President Jason T. Meadors.

Only 16 U.S. states have schools offering court reporting programs, according to the National Court Reporters Association. California’s Court Reporters Board recognizes six public schools and two private schools for court reporter training.

Another barrier to entry for the profession is the pass rates of the state’s shorthand-reporter tests. Gary Shaw, who has run the court-reporter training program at Taft College in Shafter, California, for the last 16 years, said there’s still demand for education for a job that can pay six figures annually. “It’s the dictation test that’s stopping people from getting licensed,” he said.

Out of 65 people who took the exam in March, only 15 test takers passed, according to the Court Reporters Board.

The Significance

From 2015 to 2021, the number of certified shorthand reporters in California has declined from 6,960 to 5,854, according to state Department of Consumer Affairs data. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ job outlook for the profession projects little or no change from 2021 to 2031. 

The California court CEOs noted in their news release that “other options need to be available to the courts” when they cannot provide court reporters. “We are ready, able and willing to work with all stakeholders on finding ways to ensure that all litigants who need a record have access to one.”

Rosalina Nava, a court reporter for L.A. County Superior Court said the executives' arguments are red herrings meant to make a move to electronic recording look inevitable. She asserted that court administrators have not actively recruited on major job sites or, until recently, in direct mailings to state licensees.

“What we think is that having a job listing is not the same thing as actually recruiting,” Nava said. “We just don’t feel like they’re actually doing that.”

Earlier this year, California legislators passed a law that will license voice writing, where court reporters speak into masks using software that transcribes into text.

However, in August, a bill that would have extended the use of remote proceedings in civil court cases died after the Assembly tacked on amendments the legislation’s author said caused the bill to do “more harm than good.” Prior to the ill-fated bill, in 2021, lawmakers reached an agreement with the Judicial Council, attorneys and unions representing court reporters and interpreters to continue using remote technology after the expiration of pandemic-related emergency orders.

Court employees and court reporters have argued that the remote technology isn’t reliable. At a May 2021 legislative hearing, interpreters and court reporters said video participants in proceedings were shut out and dropped from hearings, including one litigant whose image went dark after his cellphone minutes ran out.

Yet, Jim Cudahy, a senior consultant for Virtual Inc. and former president of the National Court Reporters Association, said the court reporters don’t necessarily have any particular problem with remote reporting. “[It's] to prevent larger [court reporter] firms from having a large footprint in their state [and] making use of nonstenographic reporting in the state. That’s the end goal of that type of effort in my view,” Cudahy said.

The Information

Want to know more? Here's what we've discovered in the ALM Global Newsroom:

• Labor Union, Judicial Leaders Draw Battle Lines on Future of Court Reporters

• No Will, No Way: Correcting the Record on the LA Superior Court Reporter ‘Shortage’

• Citing Shortage, LA Pulls Court Reporters From Civil, Family Law Cases

• Legislature Poised to Authorize 'Voice Writers' in California Courtrooms

• Bill Extending Remote Court Access in Civil Cases Dies in Legislature

• There’s Fewer Small Court Reporting Agencies—But Don't Blame Technology for That

• State Lawmakers Reject Proposal to Retain Remote Court Technology Post-Pandemic

• Court Reporter Agencies Are Betting on Remote Reporting Well Beyond the Pandemic

• How California Made a Last-Minute Deal to Expand Remote Court Proceedings

  
  

The Forecast

News of court reporter shortages have come out of jurisdictions including Texas, New York, Arkansas, South Dakota, Florida and Vermont. 

Without changes to the statutory framework for court reporting, the California court CEOs assert, “all courts will face the inevitable day, already seen by a few California courts, of not having enough court reporters to cover the mandated felony criminal and juvenile dependency and delinquency cases.”

Court administrators, lawmakers and court reporter advocates will likely want to look westward to see how the debate continues to take shape in California.

Alaina Lancaster, based in San Francisco, is the bureau chief for The Recorder. Contact her at alancaster@alm.com. On Twitter: @a_lancaster3