California’s AB 882 – A Temporary Solution or a Trojan Horse?

Introduction

On May 27, 2025, California Assembly Bill 882 (AB 882), authored by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo), passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, clearing its final legislative hurdle in the Assembly before heading to a full floor vote. This marks a critical juncture in the ongoing debate surrounding the chronic shortage of court reporters in California and the controversial proposal to expand the use of electronic recordings in court proceedings. While AB 882 is framed as a stopgap solution to maintain access to justice, its language leaves much to be desired—and may ultimately pave the way for permanent erosion of the court reporting profession.

What AB 882 Proposes

AB 882 authorizes California courts to utilize electronic recording in specific cases, including family law, probate, and civil contempt proceedings, under strictly limited circumstances. The authority to electronically record expires on January 1, 2028. Key provisions of the bill include:

• Courts must demonstrate that, after due diligence, no official or pro tempore court reporters are available.
• Electronic recording can only be used in proceedings where a verbatim record is legally required.
• Courts must actively recruit certified shorthand reporters and provide documentation of good-faith recruitment efforts.
• Courts are barred from displacing existing reporters and from purchasing new recording equipment solely to implement this bill.

At first glance, these provisions seem protective of the profession while offering a pragmatic solution to a long-standing shortage. But closer inspection reveals critical deficiencies, particularly in the accountability and long-term policy implications of the bill.

The 5/27/25 Milestone: A Turning Point?

The bill’s passage through the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 27, 2025 signifies not just legislative momentum, but also the implicit endorsement of a controversial shift. Sponsored by SEIU and supported by the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), the bill now faces a floor vote by June 6, after which it moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yet, the Judicial Council of California opposes the bill, raising concerns about administrative burdens and encroachment on judicial autonomy. More tellingly, they appear resistant to meaningful reforms that could revive and sustain the court reporting profession.

Where the Language Falls Short

One of the most glaring weaknesses in AB 882 is the vague requirement that courts must “actively recruit certified shorthand reporters” and maintain “documentation showing they made a good-faith effort.” While this sounds reassuring in theory, the bill provides no specific criteria or standards for what constitutes “active recruitment” or “good faith.” This ambiguity invites minimal compliance and undermines the accountability that this clause is supposed to enforce.

• What exactly qualifies as “active recruitment”? Posting a single job listing? Contacting a local court reporting school?
• What counts as “good-faith effort”? A failed email blast? A verbal inquiry at a staffing agency?
• What documentation is sufficient? A spreadsheet? A memo? A calendar entry?

In the absence of clear metrics or audit standards, courts can easily claim compliance while doing the bare minimum. This loophole essentially allows courts to justify the use of electronic recordings with little to no real effort in staffing up with human reporters.

A Band-Aid on a Broken System

While the bill is presented as a temporary measure, it’s ultimately a Band-Aid on a broken system that has suffered from over a decade of hiring neglect. California has failed to maintain robust pipelines for training, certifying, and hiring court reporters. AB 882 does nothing to address systemic issues such as:

• The lack of funding and incentives for court reporting programs
• Long hiring backlogs and inefficient bureaucratic processes
• Poor retention and support for existing reporters

In this light, AB 882 is not a solution but a deferral. Worse, by institutionalizing electronic recording under the guise of an emergency fix, it normalizes a practice that has long been viewed as a last resort.

The Trojan Horse Argument

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of AB 882 is its potential to act as a Trojan horse for widespread electronic recording. Although the bill includes a sunset clause (January 1, 2028), history shows that temporary measures often become permanent fixtures—especially when they align with cost-cutting and administrative control objectives.

The Judicial Council has long advocated for expanding electronic recording as a way to reduce dependency on human personnel. AB 882 gives them a legal framework to start building infrastructure and habits around recording, all while courts fail to genuinely engage in recruitment. When 2028 arrives, it will be far easier to argue for extending or removing the sunset clause than to reinvest in human talent.

A Path Forward: Embedding Accountability and Innovation

If AB 882 is to truly serve the public interest and protect the integrity of the court reporting profession, it must be amended to include:

1. Clear Definitions and Metrics: Specify what constitutes active recruitment and what documentation must be maintained—e.g., number of job postings, outreach to schools, response rates, etc.
2. Technology Integration for Compliance: Platforms like CoverCrow, already used by the Los Angeles Superior Court, could serve as compliance tools. CoverCrow offers real-time job matching and documentation of recruitment efforts, serving both operational and audit functions.
3. Annual Reporting Requirements: Courts using electronic recording should be required to submit annual reports detailing their recruitment efforts, reasons for failure to hire, and steps taken to improve.
4. Incentives for Human Hiring: Provide state grants or budget supplements for courts that meet court reporter hiring benchmarks.

Conclusion

AB 882, as currently written, is a flawed attempt to patch a critical weakness in California’s justice system. While it aims to preserve access to justice in the face of staffing shortages, it fails to impose meaningful accountability on the courts and leaves the door wide open for the permanent replacement of human court reporters. Without clearer standards, stronger oversight, and a commitment to long-term workforce investment, AB 882 risks becoming the legislative foundation for a judicial system that prioritizes convenience and control over accuracy and fairness.

Stakeholders must act now to tighten the bill’s language, incorporate compliance technologies, and resist the quiet creep of electronic recording into the core of our legal process. The future of real-time, human-captured justice depends on it.