L.A. Superior Court’s Move to Electronic Recording: Legal Concerns and the Response from Court Reporters

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

In a controversial move, the Los Angeles Superior Court has recently authorized the use of electronic recording for a wide range of case types, despite the clear violation of California law. This decision, issued by Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, has generated significant pushback from court reporters, legal professionals, and labor unions, who argue that the shift to electronic recording is unlawful, dangerous, and detrimental to the integrity of the legal system.

California law mandates that licensed court reporters provide verbatim transcripts of court proceedings to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the legal process. By replacing human reporters with electronic recording systems, the Los Angeles Superior Court is not only bypassing these legal requirements but also introducing a host of risks related to the reliability of the court record. Electronic recording systems, while efficient in some contexts, lack the human expertise necessary to handle the complexity of legal proceedings, putting the accuracy of transcripts at risk.

The Legal Violations and Ethical Concerns

The decision to rely on electronic recording in place of human court reporters is a direct violation of California law, which requires licensed reporters to transcribe legal proceedings in most case types. Electronic recording systems are prone to technical failures, inaccuracies, and an inability to capture the nuances of legal language. Furthermore, these machines cannot ask for clarification when something is unclear, potentially leading to incomplete or erroneous records.

Court reporters, by contrast, ensure that the record is accurate and reliable. They are trained to handle specialized legal terminology, to detect and correct errors, and to maintain a complete and accurate transcript. A flawed record — such as one produced by an electronic recording system — can undermine the fairness of trials, appeals, and other legal actions, ultimately denying individuals access to proper justice.

The ethical responsibility of maintaining an accurate, reliable court record is paramount. If the Los Angeles Superior Court is allowed to move forward with its decision, it could set a dangerous precedent that diminishes the role of human court reporters across the state. As the situation continues to unfold, many are questioning whether cost-saving measures are being prioritized over the integrity of the justice system itself.

The Manufactured Reporter Shortage

At the heart of the issue is the accusation that the shortage of court reporters in California is, in fact, a manufactured crisis. Critics argue that the Los Angeles Superior Court has systematically undermined the availability of qualified court reporters through layoffs and rejection of applicants, creating the illusion of a shortage to justify replacing human reporters with electronic systems.

The court’s failure to hire enough reporters, combined with a flawed hiring process, has led to a situation where the narrative of a “shortage” is being used as an excuse to implement substandard recording methods. Many experienced, qualified reporters have been turned away, even as the need for court reporters remains high. This manufactured shortage makes the court’s decision to use electronic recording seem like a foregone conclusion, but critics point out that the real issue is mismanagement and a refusal to prioritize proper staffing.

CCRA’s Response

In light of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) has raised its voice in opposition. On September 5, 2024, CCRA President Brooke Ryan issued a public statement condemning the court’s actions and calling for the immediate reversal of the order. The CCRA argues that the decision to use electronic recording violates state law and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the court reporting profession.

CCRA’s response highlights the significant flaws in the court’s reasoning, pointing out that the shortage of court reporters is not a natural occurrence but a direct result of the court’s previous actions — including layoffs and an exclusionary hiring process. CCRA has called on the Los Angeles Superior Court to engage in a dialogue with the labor unions and court reporters to find solutions that address staffing shortages while upholding the integrity of the court system.

The association has also emphasized that the Los Angeles Superior Court has been warned multiple times about the consequences of its actions. The move to electronic recording is seen as a calculated attempt to phase out human reporters in favor of machines, further eroding the quality of the legal record.

What Others Can Do

As this issue continues to develop, it is crucial for individuals who care about the integrity of California’s legal system to voice their concerns. The decision to allow electronic recording to replace licensed court reporters has far-reaching consequences for the fairness of the legal process, and it is essential for the public and legal professionals to take action.

  1. Contact the Los Angeles Superior Court: Concerned individuals can contact the Los Angeles Superior Court directly to express their opposition to the decision. Letters and emails can be sent to Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, urging her to reverse the order and reconsider the impact of this decision on the accuracy and fairness of the court record.
  2. Support Court Reporters and Unions: Court reporters and their unions are at the forefront of this fight. Supporting their efforts, whether through petitions, public endorsements, or donations, helps amplify their message and puts pressure on the court to reconsider its stance.
  3. Engage with Legislators: California lawmakers have the power to step in and help address this issue at the state level. By contacting local representatives and urging them to take action to protect the role of human court reporters, concerned citizens can help prevent this dangerous trend from spreading.
  4. Raise Public Awareness: Social media and public forums are powerful tools for raising awareness of the issue. Sharing information about the consequences of replacing court reporters with electronic systems can help inform the public and rally support for the cause.

The Path Forward

The decision to move toward electronic recording is more than just a technical shift — it is a legal and ethical challenge that could have long-lasting consequences for the legal system in California. If the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision is allowed to stand, it could lead to a significant erosion of the role of court reporters in the state, ultimately undermining the quality and fairness of the court record.

As court reporters, legal professionals, and concerned citizens continue to push back, the hope is that the Los Angeles Superior Court will reconsider its decision and work toward a solution that ensures a sufficient number of qualified court reporters are hired and retained. In doing so, California can maintain the integrity of its legal system and protect the rights of all those who rely on a fair and accurate court record.

The next few months will be critical in determining the future of court reporting in California. With continued advocacy and public pressure, there is still hope for a positive resolution to this ongoing issue.

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