In the current rush to automate everything from legal research to court proceedings, some stakeholders are marketing digital recording as a valid substitute for stenographic court reporting. While this shift may seem like a matter of “preference” or “cost savings,” let’s be clear: digital recording is not court reporting, and in California, it is not even legal in most settings.
Court Reporting Is a Licensed Profession—Not a Plug-and-Play Job
In California, court reporters are licensed by the Court Reporters Board (CRB) and must pass rigorous testing in transcription speed, accuracy, and legal knowledge. This licensure is codified in Business and Professions Code § 8020 et seq.. To call someone a “court reporter” who is not licensed is not only misleading—it’s unlawful.
Digital “reporters” are not licensed, not regulated, and not held to the same professional or legal standards. In many cases, they are hourly staff who press “record” on a digital device, with no training in capturing testimony, legal procedure, or producing a verbatim transcript. If something goes wrong—a dropped word, overlapping speech, technical failure—there is often no fix. The damage is done.
The Myth of Attorney Stipulation: You Can’t Stipulate Away the Law
Some agencies and attorneys attempt to sidestep the law by claiming, “Both parties stipulated to use a digital reporter.” But stipulation does not equal legality.
Attorneys cannot stipulate away the law.
That principle has been reaffirmed by California courts in various contexts: procedural rules and statutory protections are not waivable simply by agreement. When California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.330(b) requires that “the deposition shall be conducted under the supervision of an officer who is authorized to administer oaths,” it means a licensed Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR)—not a button-pusher.
The use of an unlicensed digital operator in lieu of a CSR is a violation of California’s Business and Professions Code § 8017, which states:
“A person shall not engage in the practice of shorthand reporting… unless that person holds a valid certificate as a shorthand reporter issued by the board.”
Stipulating around this is like agreeing to use a paralegal in place of a judge. You simply can’t.
Digital Reporting Skirts Due Process
Every litigant is entitled to a complete, accurate, and timely record of proceedings. That record becomes crucial when disputes arise, appeals are filed, or misconduct is alleged. A certified shorthand reporter—by training and licensure—is a guardian of that record.
Digital recordings introduce multiple risks:
- Unintelligible audio due to accents, noise, crosstalk
- Failure to identify speakers, especially when parties speak over each other
- Gaps in recording due to power or equipment failure
- Post-event transcription delays that can take weeks or months
In short, digital recordings can undermine the factual foundation of justice. If the record is flawed, the outcome of the case can be unjust.
This is more than technical inconvenience—it’s a due process issue under the 14th Amendment and the California Constitution. Litigants deserve a reliable, human-certified transcript—not the gamble of audio files and offshore transcription.
The “Cost Savings” Myth
Agencies pushing digital often claim it’s cheaper than hiring a licensed stenographer. But hidden in that “savings” are steep risks:
- Increased litigation costs when transcripts are delayed or disputed
- Appeals and retrials caused by incomplete or inaccurate records
- Malpractice exposure for attorneys who relied on unverified transcripts
- Ethical liability for firms that knowingly violated state law or misrepresented the record
It’s a classic case of penny-wise, pound-foolish.
State Law Limits Digital Use—and For Good Reason
California has not blindly embraced digital reporting. In fact, Government Code § 69941 and § 69944 expressly state that electronic recording may not be used in civil proceedings unless no reporter is available, and even then, only with specific Judicial Council approval.
The Judicial Council of California (JCC) has repeatedly reaffirmed that licensed CSRs are the preferred and legally recognized method for capturing the official record in civil courtrooms. No such preference exists for digital reporters because they are not court reporters—legally or practically.
Professional Oversight and Ethical Accountability
CSRs are subject to professional discipline through the Court Reporters Board and must follow a strict Code of Ethics. When a licensed court reporter makes a mistake, they can be held accountable.
Who disciplines a digital operator? Who verifies their training? Who certifies their transcript?
The answer: no one.
Don’t Be Fooled—Digital Is Not a Parallel Option, It’s a Legal Loophole
The industry’s attempt to frame steno and digital as interchangeable “options” is a marketing tactic—not a legal fact. In California, there is no such thing as a “digital court reporter” under the law.
If a proceeding in California does not include a CSR license holder, the resulting transcript may be challenged, stricken, or deemed inadmissible. That puts attorneys—and their clients—at risk.
Call to Action: Protect the Integrity of the Legal Record
If you’re an attorney, know this: your record is only as strong as the person who captured it.
If you’re a judge or court administrator, know this: unauthorized recording undermines the credibility of your courtroom.
If you’re a litigant, know this: your case could be compromised by a flawed record.
And if you’re a court reporting agency, know this: you’re exposing yourself to legal liability by deploying unlicensed workers to perform a protected profession.
In Summary:
- Digital “reporters” are not licensed court reporters under California law.
- Stipulating to use them does not make their use legal.
- Their use jeopardizes due process, opens the door to appeals, and undermines the record.
Let’s not confuse automation with accuracy, or convenience with constitutionality. The stakes in our justice system are too high to leave the record to machines—or to those not qualified to safeguard it.
Disclaimer
The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.
- The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.
***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):
STENOIMPERIUM 