RULES FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME SAYS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES!

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Los Angeles Superior Court judges have made a controversial decision to abandon real-time court reporters in favor of automated speech recognition (ASR) software for their personal notetaking on the bench, a move that seemingly violates existing laws prohibiting unauthorized recordings of court proceedings.

In a recent hearing, a presiding judge in Los Angeles Superior Court paused mid-sentence to address a technological issue interfering with her discussion with attorneys.

Notably, this Judge appeared on the CourtConnect screen with her chin resting on her hand, supported by her elbow, resuming this position immediately after referencing the “word processing… notetaking” software glitch. This strongly suggests she was not manually taking notes, but instead relying on ASR software to transcribe the proceedings in real-time.

Historically, judges have taken notes either by typing on a keyboard using programs like Microsoft Word or by handwriting notes. Some, like one judge formerly trained as a shorthand reporter, have even employed Gregg shorthand for quick notetaking. Additionally, certified shorthand reporters have long been employed to provide real-time verbatim transcripts, which judges can view through LiveNote software, mirrored monitors, or internet-connected proprietary programs. Immediate transcripts—both rough and certified—have always been readily available.

However, a new and legally questionable method has infiltrated the bench: ASR-based notetaking. A quick online search for notetaking programs reveals a flood of AI-powered transcription software capable of capturing and converting spoken words into text.

According to the Superior Court’s own published rules for audio/video court hearings, recording court proceedings “in any way” is explicitly prohibited for all participants. This raises an obvious issue: ASR software fundamentally relies on audio capture. It records spoken words via a microphone, processes the audio data into a transcript, and saves a .wav file in the process. Any ASR provider will confirm that this is how their software functions, meaning that by using ASR software, the court is—by its own definition—recording the proceedings.

It’s kind of a no-brainer that ASR, automated speech recognition, requires a microphone to capture the spoken words, and then records the audio that it captures to then be analyzed by the software. A wav file is created and saved in the software. Just check with any number of these ASR companies to verify that’s how it works. So, in essence, it is RECORDING the court proceeding.

Let’s break down the Superior Court’s official admonition, which warns against unauthorized recordings. Nowhere does it state that recording can be permitted at the court’s discretion. Instead, it specifies that sanctions may be imposed for violations. But what happens when a judge is the one violating the law? Apparently, nothing.

Besides the court’s own admonition, what law is being broken?

This raises an even bigger question: If public government proceedings are legally allowed to be recorded, why does the court explicitly prohibit it for others while seemingly engaging in the practice themselves? The double standard is glaring, and the implications for transparency and legal accountability are profound.

Judges are not explicitly exempt from Penal Code 632, as subsection (b) defines “person” to include individuals acting on behalf of the government. However, subsection (c) states that communications in judicial proceedings open to the public are not considered confidential, meaning court proceedings may not fall under this law’s protection. This raises concerns about whether ASR software, which inherently records audio, conflicts with legal and ethical standards.

When judges violate the law, it creates serious legal and ethical conflicts that undermine the judiciary’s integrity. Legally, judges are bound by the same laws as citizens, and violating Penal Code 632 or court regulations on recording raises concerns about selective enforcement and accountability. Ethically, judges are expected to uphold impartiality and fairness, yet disregarding rules they enforce on others erodes public trust. Moreover, their actions set dangerous precedents, suggesting that judicial figures operate above the law, which contradicts the foundational principle of equal justice.

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment