The California Supreme Court to Hear Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts: A Pivotal Moment for Court Reporting

Last Wednesday, the California Supreme Court made a significant decision to hear the case of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts, a case that carries substantial implications for the future of court reporting in the state. This lawsuit alleges that several county superior courts—including those in Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara—are failing to provide an accurate and verbatim record of proceedings by not permitting electronic recording for indigent litigants. This case raises crucial questions about access to justice, court transparency, and the role of licensed court reporters in safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.

The Background of the Case

As noted in a December update, the plaintiffs argue that electronic recording should be permitted to ensure an accurate record of legal proceedings for individuals who cannot afford the services of a licensed court reporter. In response, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and local court reporting associations from Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara Counties have filed an amicus brief, opposing the expansion of electronic recording.

In its February 19 order, the Supreme Court mandated that the Respondents and the Legislature provide justification within 60 days as to why the requested relief—effectively a large-scale expansion of electronic recording—should not be granted. This sets the stage for a legal battle with potential ramifications for court operations across California.

The Core Issues at Stake

The dispute at the heart of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts reflects a long-standing debate over the reliability and accuracy of electronic recordings versus live court reporters. Court reporters, who are licensed professionals trained to capture every word spoken in a courtroom, play a crucial role in preserving an unassailable record. Electronic recording, while useful in some settings, has frequently been criticized for its inability to provide a fully accurate and reliable record, often containing omissions, inaudible sections, and other errors that can compromise the fairness of judicial proceedings.

The case also brings into focus the broader issue of court administration and resource allocation. The courts in question have long faced scrutiny for their handling of court reporter staffing. Over the years, courts have reduced court reporter positions through layoffs, retirement buyouts, and refusals to fill vacant positions. Despite legislative efforts to bolster court reporting—such as allocating millions of dollars to fund recruitment and retention—some courts have returned these funds rather than hiring the necessary personnel. This mismanagement has contributed to the current crisis, in which litigants, particularly those from marginalized communities, are left without reliable court records.

Legislative Efforts and Judicial Resistance

The California Legislature has taken proactive steps to address the court reporter shortage. By authorizing the licensing of voice writers and allocating significant funding for recruitment, lawmakers have ensured that the number of certified shorthand reporters has increased dramatically in recent years. Court reporting schools now have waiting lists, and the profession is experiencing renewed interest.

Despite these efforts, some judges have chosen to disregard legislative intent by reducing the presence of court reporters in their courtrooms. This judicial resistance threatens to undermine the legal protections established to ensure litigants have access to an accurate record of their proceedings. The judiciary’s reluctance to embrace legislative measures raises concerns about the separation of powers and whether courts should be permitted to circumvent laws designed to protect due process rights.

The Risks of Electronic Recording

Those advocating against the expansion of electronic recording emphasize its numerous shortcomings. Unlike a licensed court reporter, who ensures clarity and accuracy in transcribing legal proceedings, electronic recording systems are prone to a variety of issues, including:

• Technical Failures: Recording equipment malfunctions can result in missing testimony or distorted audio.
• Inaudible Sections: Background noise, overlapping speech, and poor microphone placement can make portions of the record unintelligible.
• Lack of Real-Time Certification: Court reporters can immediately clarify testimony and provide real-time transcription, whereas recordings require later review, which increases the likelihood of errors and omissions.
• Editing and Manipulation Risks: Unlike certified transcripts prepared by a court reporter, electronic recordings are vulnerable to tampering or disputes over authenticity.

Given the high stakes in family law and domestic violence cases—where custody, safety, and fundamental rights are often at issue—ensuring a flawless record is essential. Courts cannot afford to compromise on accuracy when justice and liberty are on the line.

A Multi-Tiered System of Justice?

The controversy surrounding this case also underscores concerns about a potential two-tiered justice system. Wealthier litigants can afford court reporters, ensuring that their cases are recorded with precision, while indigent litigants might be forced to rely on flawed electronic recordings. This disparity threatens the principle of equal justice under the law and raises constitutional concerns about access to due process.

Notably, some counties have taken proactive measures to ensure that all litigants have access to professional court reporters. For example, Orange County Superior Court has successfully retained a full staff of court reporters. Similarly, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have initiated paid internship programs to attract new reporters. These examples demonstrate that a commitment to properly staffing courtrooms with professional reporters is both feasible and effective.

The Path Forward

The outcome of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts will have lasting consequences for the California judiciary and the broader legal system. Advocates for court reporters argue that the law is on their side and that a ruling in favor of electronic recording could set a dangerous precedent. With a decision from the Supreme Court pending, the legal community must remain engaged in this critical discussion.

In the meantime, the CCRA is urging court reporters, legal professionals, and concerned citizens to stay informed and involved. At the end of next month, CCRA will host the Legislative Empowerment & Advocacy Development program, which will provide training on effective legislative advocacy, including letter-writing campaigns, direct engagement with lawmakers, and testifying in Sacramento.

As this case unfolds, the legal community must ensure that the voices of court reporters and litigants alike are heard. The integrity of California’s judicial system depends on a fair, accurate, and accessible record for all, and the fight to uphold this standard is far from over.