A Crisis in the Courts – L.A. County’s Reporter Shortage, Jessner’s Controversial Order, and the Looming Threat of Jury Nullification

In Los Angeles County, a storm is brewing within the legal system—one that could shake the very foundation of justice in California’s largest court system. At the heart of the matter lies a controversial move by Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner, who recently issued a general order permitting electronic recording of proceedings in certain types of civil cases. On its face, the order may seem like a practical response to a court reporter shortage. But beneath the surface, legal experts, court observers, and concerned citizens are raising alarm bells. Critics say Judge Jessner’s order not only violates existing California law but also risks triggering a broader constitutional crisis—jury nullification.

The Legal Backdrop of California Government Code § 69957

To understand the magnitude of this decision, it’s important to first look at the law. California Government Code § 69957 explicitly limits the types of court proceedings that can be electronically recorded in lieu of official court reporters. The statute allows such recordings only in limited civil cases—typically smaller disputes involving damages below $25,000.

However, the statute prohibits electronic recording in unlimited civil, family, and probate courtrooms. These are high-stakes proceedings—cases involving millions of dollars, child custody, complex estates, and more. The law clearly indicates that human court reporters must transcribe these cases to ensure accurate and official records.

The Legislative Attempt That Failed

Earlier in 2024, California’s judiciary sought to change that. A proposed bill, AB 662, aimed to revise the Government Code and allow for broader electronic recording, including in unlimited civil, family, and probate matters. The judiciary’s argument was straightforward: the state faces a critical shortage of licensed court reporters, and electronic recording offers a stopgap solution.

But the California Legislature disagreed. In a decisive move, AB 662 was rejected—deemed inappropriate, perhaps unsafe, and certainly not a full replacement for trained professionals who capture the nuance, emotion, and verbal precision of courtroom proceedings. The bill’s failure reinforced the legal status quo: electronic recording remains strictly limited.

Presiding Judge Jessner’s recent order allowing electronic recording in civil, family, and probate courts defies California law—one that was already upheld in court 30 years ago. In the 1990s, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) sued LASC for the same issue and won. That decision was appealed and upheld. Jessner’s defiance now not only breaks the law—it violates settled case precedent.

​In the 1990s, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) challenged the use of electronic recording in superior court proceedings, leading to significant legal decisions that continue to influence court practices today.​

CCRA v. Judicial Council of California (1996):

In this case, the CCRA petitioned for a writ of mandate to prevent the Judicial Council from authorizing electronic recording in superior courts, arguing that such practices were inconsistent with statutory law. The trial court denied the petition, but upon appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the CCRA. The appellate court found that the California Rules of Court permitting electronic recording were invalid as they conflicted with existing statutes requiring certified shorthand reporters for superior court proceedings. This decision underscored the necessity of adhering to legislative mandates regarding court reporting methods. ​

Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association v. Superior Court (1995):

Similarly, the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association contested the Superior Court’s practice of using electronic recording devices instead of certified court reporters for general civil proceedings. The association sought a writ of mandate to compel the court to cease this practice, arguing it violated statutory provisions. The trial court ruled in favor of the association, ordering the Superior Court to stop using electronic recording in specified circumstances. This decision was upheld on appeal, reinforcing the requirement for certified court reporters in superior court proceedings and highlighting the judiciary’s obligation to comply with statutory requirements. ​

These cases established clear legal precedents emphasizing that the use of electronic recording in superior court proceedings, without explicit legislative authorization, is impermissible. They highlight the judiciary’s duty to adhere strictly to statutory mandates concerning court reporting methods.

Is Jessner’s Order a Legal End-Run?

With the bill defeated, the courts were expected to respect the will of the legislature. But Judge Jessner had other plans.

In a sweeping General Order issued after the failure of AB 662, Jessner authorized the use of electronic recordings in exactly the kinds of cases the law prohibits: unlimited civil, family, and probate. Critics argue that this is not only a defiance of the legislature but a direct contravention of the law itself.

Legal scholars and former judges have described the move as an overreach—what some call “legislating from the bench.” In effect, Jessner made a unilateral decision to expand the court’s powers, a responsibility that belongs solely to the state legislature. Her justification? A persistent shortage of court reporters.

Fact or Fiction? Questioning the Reporter Shortage Narrative

But that justification may not hold up under scrutiny.

Documents obtained through public records requests and interviews with court insiders suggest that the data Jessner cited to support the court reporter shortage may have been overstated or manipulated. While there is a known shortage of reporters statewide, critics say the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) has failed to address the problem in meaningful ways—such as improving working conditions, increasing pay, or investing in recruitment.

Instead, some accuse court leadership of manufacturing a crisis to justify policy changes that benefit the court’s administrative convenience at the expense of legal safeguards. By framing the shortage as a dire emergency, Jessner’s order attempts to bypass legal channels and implement a solution that had already been rejected through the proper democratic process.

The Reporter Shortage: Priorities, Budget Constraints, and Emerging Solutions

The court reporter shortage in California is not a sudden crisis; it’s the result of years of systemic strain, budgetary decisions, and shifting courtroom priorities. In response to dwindling staffing levels, courts across the state, including Los Angeles County, began quietly pulling certified reporters from civil courtrooms several years ago. In 2012 for Los Angeles county and back as early as 2018 in Orange County, and misdemeanor cases a decade earlier than that. The rationale was rooted in triage: felony and juvenile matters, often involving fundamental rights and liberty, were deemed higher priority and continue to receive first access to the remaining pool of reporters.

In counties like Sonoma, the shortage is even more acute. With 25 courtrooms and only eight reporters on staff, administrators are routinely forced to use electronic recording—even for felony calendars—when reporters are unavailable. The shortage is compounded by the courts’ reluctance to pay freelance or pro tempore reporters competitive rates, leaving them with few options when a staff reporter calls in sick or when demand exceeds supply. The daily pro tem rates that the Superior Court pay are 50-year old rates, going back to pre-1970; when given that freelancers rates have gone up, few are willing to go backwards in pay.

This strategy—prioritizing only the most serious cases—has left other vital proceedings like family law, probate, and general civil trials without the reliable and accurate records that certified reporters provide. These are often cases involving child custody, property disputes, and elder care—far from trivial, yet increasingly treated as expendable when staffing runs thin.

Yet, amid these challenges, a quiet shift may be underway. California recently authorized the use of voice writers—court reporters who use specialized speech recognition technology to create real-time transcripts. This move has begun to attract a new wave of applicants to the profession, offering a glimmer of hope for long-term staffing solutions.

Still, many argue that technology alone cannot replace the skill, accuracy, and accountability of a live reporter. The question remains: will California’s courts commit the necessary resources to rebuild the profession—or continue to drift toward a model that prioritizes cost-efficiency over courtroom integrity?

The Constitutional Crisis – Eroding Trust in the Judiciary

The implications of Jessner’s order extend beyond courtroom logistics. At stake is the integrity of the judicial system itself.

Imagine walking into a courtroom as a prospective juror. You are instructed by the judge, “Can you follow the law as I give it to you?” It’s a routine question in voir dire—the process of selecting a jury.

But now imagine the juror’s reply:

“Your honor, with all due respect, the judges in Los Angeles County have decided not to follow the law, so why should I?”

It’s a provocative response—but one grounded in real concerns. If judges can disregard the law and act unilaterally, what moral authority do they retain in asking jurors to uphold the law?

This is where the concept of jury nullification rears its head. Traditionally seen as a check against unjust laws or abusive prosecutions, jury nullification occurs when jurors acquit a defendant despite evidence of guilt because they believe the law itself is wrong or has been applied unfairly.

In this case, the danger is broader: that jurors may begin to see the judiciary as lawless, or worse, politically motivated. When trust in judicial impartiality erodes, the entire system suffers.

A Call for Accountability and Reform

This controversy points to a larger issue within the California judiciary—how courts respond to challenges, and whether they respect the legislative process.

No one denies that court reporter shortages are real and problematic. But the solution must lie in lawful reform, not judicial fiat. If court leadership believes electronic recording is necessary, they must make their case through the proper democratic channels—and respect the outcome.

To bypass the law because it is inconvenient sets a dangerous precedent. What happens the next time a judge finds another law too restrictive or outdated? Will they ignore that one, too?

What’s Next?

For now, legal watchdogs are calling for immediate action. Some advocate for judicial review of Jessner’s order, or for intervention by the California Judicial Council or even the State Bar. Others are considering litigation to challenge the order’s legality.

Meanwhile, the public—and especially jurors—are left in a troubling position. They are asked to follow the rules in a system where even the rule-makers seem to pick and choose which laws to obey.

The Los Angeles Superior Court system is not just facing a shortage of court reporters—it’s facing a crisis of confidence. And unless transparency, accountability, and respect for the rule of law are restored, that crisis could soon spill out of the courtroom and into the conscience of every citizen called to serve.