When the Bill Comes Due – How California’s SB 988 Exposes a Nationwide Gap in Reporter Payment Protections

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When California’s Senate Bill 988 took effect in 2025, it was hailed as a long-overdue victory for working court reporters. The new law requires reporting firms to pay freelance reporters within 30 days of invoice, closing a loophole that had allowed indefinite payment delays.

But SB 988 did something else too: it revealed a troubling imbalance that ripples far beyond California’s borders. While reporters must now be paid promptly, there’s no corresponding law requiring attorneys to pay firms within the same time frame. The result is a cash-flow bottleneck that burdens small agencies and freelancers — and exposes a broader need for reform in every state.

The Legal Landscape in California

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.510(b), the party noticing the deposition — typically the attorney or their firm — “shall bear the cost of that transcription, unless the court orders otherwise.” In other words, the lawyer is legally responsible for payment, not the client.

Yet nowhere in the statute or related case law does the Legislature set a timeline for that payment. Firms must front the cost, pay their independent reporters within 30 days under SB 988, and then wait — sometimes 60, 90, or 120 days — for reimbursement from the attorney.

For large national agencies with deep reserves, the delay is an inconvenience. For small California firms, it’s existential.

“SB 988 was supposed to protect freelancers,” one Bay Area firm owner recently told me, “but now it’s forcing us to act as lenders. We’re paying thousands of dollars out each week while waiting months for law firms to pay their invoices.”

The intent of SB 988 is sound: ensure that working reporters get paid fairly and on time. But without a corresponding requirement on the payor side, it unintentionally shifts the financial risk upstream to the small businesses that employ reporters — the very people the law was meant to protect.

How Other States Compare

California’s legislative activism often acts as a bellwether for the rest of the country, and that’s particularly true in professions tied to the justice system. Roughly one-third of all licensed court reporters in the U.S. reside in California, and many national firms base their policies on California compliance standards.

Yet no other state currently mirrors SB 988’s 30-day payment rule.

  • Texas places payment responsibility on the noticing attorney (Texas Rule 203.6) but provides no time limit.
  • New York allows court reporters to contract privately but offers no statutory payment deadline.
  • Florida and Illinois similarly rely on contractual terms or agency policy, not codified law, to govern when reporters are paid.
  • Nevada’s Senate Bill 191 (2025), which raises official reporter pay, stops short of addressing freelance payment timelines altogether.

In short, California is the first to legislate a concrete payment deadline for reporters — but only half the equation.

Why This Matters Beyond California

Even if you’re not a California reporter, these developments affect you. Here’s why:

  1. California drives national practice standards. Large national agencies often adopt California-compliant policies company-wide, so the way SB 988 is implemented could determine how reporters everywhere are paid.
  2. Interstate deposition work is common. When a California attorney notices a deposition in another state, the payment expectations follow California’s statutes. That can create confusion or inequity if a reporter in, say, Arizona is subject to California’s 30-day rule while waiting for payment from an out-of-state firm that has no reciprocal duty from the attorney.
  3. Other legislatures are watching. Labor-friendly states such as Washington, Oregon, and New York often model their workforce-protection bills after California’s. SB 988 may well become the template for broader “Freelance Worker Payment Acts” nationwide.

So while the fine print may look like a California-only issue, its ripple effect is national — and potentially global, given the growth of remote and cross-jurisdictional reporting.

The Missing Half: Attorney Payment Deadlines

If fairness is the goal, then parity is the solution. For SB 988 to function equitably, a companion statute should require attorneys and law firms to remit payment to reporting firms within 30 days of invoice receipt — or face late fees and interest, just as the Labor Code imposes on employers.

Attorneys are already the responsible party under CCP § 2025.510(b); enforcing a timeline would simply ensure the law operates as intended.

This isn’t a radical idea. In the construction industry, California’s Prompt Payment Act (Public Contract Code § 7107) requires general contractors to pay subcontractors within a fixed number of days once funds are received. The freelance creative sector has similar laws: New York’s “Freelance Isn’t Free Act” requires payment within 30 days.

Court reporting deserves the same protection.

What Reporters and Agencies Can Do Now

Until the law catches up, reporters and firms can take proactive steps to protect themselves.

1. Put Payment Terms in Writing

Include a clear clause in your Reporter Engagement Agreements and Client Service Contracts specifying that payment is due within 30 days of invoice. Add language referencing SB 988 and CCP § 2025.510(b) to reinforce statutory backing.

2. Invoice Promptly and Consistently

Send invoices as soon as the transcript is delivered. The 30-day clock under SB 988 starts from invoice date, not job date. Timely billing protects your rights and creates a record if payment disputes arise.

3. Track and Document Late Payments

Maintain detailed logs of all invoices and payment receipts. Chronic late payors may justify refusing future assignments under Labor Code § 2750.3(f) (for misclassification risk) or small-claims recovery.

4. Educate Attorneys and Clients

Many lawyers simply don’t realize they — not their client — are personally responsible for transcript costs. A short note on your invoice citing CCP § 2025.510(b) can serve as a polite reminder and reduce delays.

5. Advocate for Parity Legislation

Join your state association or the Deposition Reporters Association of California (DRA) in pushing for a companion bill that extends SB 988’s payment deadlines to law firms. Reach out to legislators, bar associations, and labor committees to share how the current system strains small businesses.

When reporters speak collectively, lawmakers listen — SB 988 itself passed because of coordinated testimony from hundreds of working reporters.

A National Opportunity for Reform

California’s experiment with SB 988 offers the rest of the country a rare chance to get ahead of the curve. By watching how this law plays out — where it succeeds, and where it stumbles — other states can craft more balanced legislation that protects both the freelancer and the small business.

Imagine a nationwide standard: reporters paid within 30 days, firms reimbursed within the same period, and a clear statutory mechanism for resolving disputes. That’s not just fairness; it’s sustainability.

Because when reporters can depend on steady pay, firms can grow, attorneys can trust reliable turnaround, and the integrity of the record — the foundation of our justice system — remains strong.

Closing Thoughts

SB 988 is more than a payroll rule. It’s a statement about how society values skilled human labor in an era of automation and outsourcing.

If California can refine the model to include reciprocal deadlines for attorney payment, and if other states adopt similar worker-first protections, the profession will have taken a real step toward equity and stability.

Even if you’re not a California reporter, watch this space. What starts here rarely stays here for long — and this time, that might be a good thing.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

This article reflects my perspective and analysis as a court reporter and eyewitness. It is not legal advice, nor is it intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney.

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