The headlines came fast and loud:
“BREAKING: AB 711 HAS PASSED 🚨
Governor Newsom has officially signed AB 711… Attorneys filing motions must now state whether they will provide a certified shorthand reporter… More clarity, fewer conflicts, and a stronger commitment to protecting the record.”
If only that were true.
Behind the confetti emojis and PR spin lies a sobering reality: AB 711 is not a win for the judicial system—it’s a calculated move to offload the state’s responsibility for ensuring accurate court records, and a dangerous turning point in the quiet war being waged against certified court reporters across California.
What AB 711 Actually Does—And Why It’s a Problem
AB 711 requires attorneys filing motions in civil cases to indicate whether they intend to provide their own certified shorthand reporter (CSR). At face value, it sounds like a neutral logistics policy. In reality, it codifies the withdrawal of state accountability.
California law (CCP § 269) has long required a verbatim record in unlimited civil trials, and Rule 2.956 prohibits digital recording unless no CSR is available. But rather than addressing the systemic issue of underhiring and underfunding certified reporters, AB 711 hands the responsibility for the record over to attorneys—essentially turning access to justice into a pay-to-play model.
This bill doesn’t protect the record. It privatizes it.
Don’t Take Our Word for It—Watch It Unfold
Still think AB 711 is harmless?
Just last week, on July 28, 2025, a certified court reporter stood ready in Department 5 at the Spring Street Courthouse. She had been assigned for trial, was present, and prepared to work. But the judge—Karlan Shaller—told the attorneys, “You don’t need a court reporter.”
That moment was documented in a widely circulated exposé titled:
“Judge Tells Attorneys They Don’t Need a Court Reporter for Trial — Even When Certified Reporter is Present and Assigned.”
Although the trial ultimately proceeded with a reporter, the judge’s statement was not a slip of the tongue—it was a signal. It revealed a deeper agenda already playing out behind the scenes.
Just months ago, in Department 30 at Stanley Mosk, another judge presided over an unlimited civil trial without a reporter, despite one being present. That trial now has no certified transcript. No appeal. No accountability.
These aren’t isolated incidents. They are test balloons for a new judicial norm.
AB 711 Fits the Pattern of Erosion
AB 711 doesn’t solve any problem—it enables this erosion to continue, legally.
The judiciary has been building toward this for years. When SB 662—a bill that would have legalized widespread electronic recording—was defeated in early 2024, Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner issued a controversial general order that gave judges a workaround.
That order authorized electronic recording in unlimited civil, family law, and probate proceedings if no reporter was available. But as we now see, “unavailable” is being redefined in practice to mean “in the room, but ignored.”
And now AB 711 provides the perfect legal cover. Courts can claim they’re merely following procedure—after all, it’s the attorneys’ responsibility now to request or supply a reporter.
The Real Impact on the Legal System
The consequences of this shift are far-reaching:
- Justice Becomes Tiered: Wealthy clients will have access to private reporters and certified transcripts. Low-income litigants will not.
- Public Accountability Evaporates: Without an independent officer of the court creating a record, judicial errors, misconduct, or unethical behavior go unchecked.
- Appeals Become Meaningless: No record means no review. No transcript, no accountability.
- The State Escapes Responsibility: Courts can continue gutting reporter departments under the guise of “shortages,” all while forcing the burden onto the private sector.
Meanwhile, the court reporting profession—a highly skilled, ethical, and regulated workforce—is being devalued, discredited, and displaced.
Inflated Stats, Misleading Narratives
To justify this trend, courts continue to cite “1.7 million unreported hearings” in two years. But as legal experts have pointed out, most of these are procedural: status conferences, continuances, minute orders. They were never the types of hearings that required transcripts in the first place.
This inflation of statistics is not accidental. It is part of a narrative carefully crafted to depict a crisis—one that doesn’t exist—to pave the way for the so-called “solution” of AI transcription and digital recording.
But the goal isn’t modernization.
It’s monetization.
By replacing certified reporters with court-owned audio files and unregulated transcription services, the courts stand to gain total control over the legal record: when it’s released, how it’s edited, and at what cost. That is a dangerous centralization of power.
What’s Really at Stake
Certified court reporters are neutral officers of the court, sworn to capture and certify proceedings with accuracy and impartiality. They are the custodians of the record—not the court, not the attorneys, and certainly not AI.
Without that independence, we enter an era of justice without a record.
And that’s no justice at all.
In Department 30, we already saw the consequences: a trial without a transcript, despite the law requiring one. In Department 5, we saw a judge test the waters, telling attorneys that a reporter wasn’t needed—when one had been assigned.
AB 711 was the final piece of the puzzle: a bill that shifts the burden off the courts, onto the attorneys, and ultimately onto litigants—while shielding the judiciary from responsibility.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The passage of AB 711 must be a wake-up call.
Judges, bar associations, and legal advocacy groups need to speak out against this quiet dismantling of our justice infrastructure. Reporters must remain vigilant, documenting violations and reporting them through proper channels.
Litigators must now routinely ask: “Is a certified reporter present and available?” If so, the law requires their use. No judge has the authority to waive that.
This isn’t a policy debate anymore. It’s a constitutional one.
When records are incomplete or absent, appellate courts can’t do their jobs. Wrongful rulings go unchallenged. Public confidence erodes.
And the people lose.
Final Word
The court system does not exist to serve itself. It exists to serve justice. And justice must be recorded—fully, accurately, and by a neutral professional. AB 711 may be law, but it is not progress.
To celebrate this bill is to celebrate the erosion of integrity.
If you believe in fairness, in access to justice, and in the right to a record—this is your moment to fight back.
Because the next time a judge says “You don’t need a court reporter,”
you may be the one left with no transcript,
no appeal,
and no voice.
STENOIMPERIUM 