When Disclosure Isn’t Enough – Why AB 711 Doesn’t Serve Court Reporters or Access to Justice

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The recently-passed California legislation AB 711 is being hailed by some as a “smart, efficient” fix for duplicative court-reporter bookings in civil motions. For example, Stephanie Leslie’s summary underscores a key impetus: multiple stenographers showing up for the same hearing, wasted resources, and a shortage of reporters. That narrative is accurate—but the cure offered by AB 711 misses the mark and risks leaving the profession of certified shorthand reporters (CSRs) weaker, not stronger.

Here are the principal concerns:

1. Paperwork isn’t a substitute for resources

One of the bill’s core requirements is that the moving party must state in the notice of motion whether they will retain a certified shorthand reporter, and the “meet-and-confer” declaration must likewise include whether a court reporter will be retained. The logic: better communication = less duplication.

But the problem is deeper. Many counties have struggled for years to hire or retain enough CSRs. When a hearing is booked or changed at the last minute, when parties negotiate continuances, when courts shift calendars or reassign matters, the certainty required by the new disclosure obligation simply doesn’t exist. As one court reporter put it:

“AB 711 assumes that lawyers—and by extension, court reporters—can plan accurately around future court appearances. In the real world, the opposite is true.” STENOIMPERIUM

If the system already has instability, adding a checkbox disclosure doesn’t fix the underlying scarcity or volatility—it just adds more obligations.

2. It may signal that reporters are optional

AB 711’s framing treats the retention of a CSR as a matter of declaration. If a party says “no” (we will not retain a shorthand reporter), the process moves on. But what message does that send? It implicitly normalizes hearings proceeding without a certified shorthand reporter, or at least gives the impression that parties opt-in rather than ensuring a reporter is present as a standard best practice.

As the professional commentary puts it:

“By turning the use of a CSR into a simple box to check, AB 711 may unintentionally normalize the idea that a court reporter is optional.” STENOIMPERIUM

In a justice system that relies on accurate records for appeals, transcripts, and transparency, that is a risk. Many litigants depend on the record. If their case proceeds without a certified reporter because nobody “checked the box,” access to due process suffers.

3. Freelance reporters bear the risk of reactive scheduling

Because California’s court-reporting market has many freelance CSRs (private contracts rather than full-time court staff) the scheduling dynamics already favour caution. One booking is secured; others are tentative. If a hearing is vacated or rescheduled, that lost day cannot always be recovered.

But AB 711 asks parties to declare in advance. For freelancers, that doesn’t guarantee work. It may lock the job market into fragile commitments. From the analysis:

“This bill doesn’t guarantee us more work. … It creates the illusion of increased demand through advance declarations—without actually producing more jobs or providing enforcement if those declarations are ignored.” STENOIMPERIUM

In other words: while the law purports to reduce “waste,” it may instead shift the burden of uncertainty to the reporters themselves. And the administrative burden grows while the substantive support (e.g., guaranteed bookings, more funded staff) remains absent.

4. The alleged savings may be overrated — and the risk of substitution looms

Proponents emphasise that duplicate reporter bookings cost litigants—so the requirement should reduce waste. For example one summary notes that many CSRs in certain California counties reported being double-booked at least monthly. ccrola.com+1

Yet: the solution may not be simply “declare whether you’ll hire a reporter.” It may require investment: more CSRs, better recruiting/training, retention incentives, and courts bolstering in-house or contract staff. AB 711 doesn’t provide that. It doesn’t ensure that the parties will actually hire a certified reporter; it just makes them say whether they intend to. Consequently, the risk arises that parties will more often choose not to retain a CSR (because the cost is real) or turn to cheaper, less reliable alternatives (e.g., electronic recording or uncertified transcription). One commentator warns of this:

“A competitive opening for low-quality alternatives. … The state … may begin to see human reporters as expendable.” STENOIMPERIUM

If that shift happens, we don’t solve the reporter shortage—we degrade the standard of the official record.

5. The broader systemic issues remain unaddressed

The shortage of court reporters in many jurisdictions is a structural challenge: budget, recruitment, training, licensing, fatigue of the profession. AB 711 sidesteps those root issues. The bill’s analysis itself acknowledges that courts have been unable “to hire or retain court reporters,” and that “the economics of the industry has shifted heavily in favour of private reporters” rather than court staff. PolicyEngage

Thus, while it may tidy up one manifestation of the problem (duplicate bookings), it does nothing to ensure that more hearings are covered by qualified CSRs, that reporter pay is improved, or that the profession is strengthened to meet increasing demand.

In summary, while AB 711 has the veneer of efficiency and cost-saving, it risks being a paper fix for a deeper crisis. The law asks parties to “meet and confer” and declare whether a reporter will be hired. That’s not inherently bad—but as a standalone reform it is inadequate.

For professionals like myself—and for the many litigants who rely on accurate reporting—the risk is that the law signals “you’re on your own” rather than “we will ensure reliable, certified reporting for every hearing.” If we truly value the record, the transcript, the due-process imperative, then we need more than declarations; we need investment, staffing, training, and accountability.

To cast this in the terms of the conversation: Yes, the need for more court reporters is “common knowledge.” What we don’t get from AB 711 is a concrete plan to recruit, retain, staff, and pay them. Instead we get a mandate to check a box and hope the system handles the rest.

Unless that underlying work is done, AB 711 may end up as a symbolic win for “efficiency” while the professions and the litigants it is meant to serve continue to bear the risk.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

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):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment