Tuesday, 11 August 2026, 9:26
The California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling Monday that allows electronic recording of civil court hearings when no court reporter is available and litigants cannot afford to hire one. The decision seeks to end a crisis that has left over a million hearings a year without an official transcript, making appeals nearly impossible for low-income Californians.
Until now, California law prohibited recording most Superior Court proceedings, requiring a licensed stenographer to be physically present to create a verbatim record. But a chronic shortage of court reporters, combined with the high cost of hiring one privately, meant many civil hearings, especially in family court, went unrecorded. That left litigants without the record needed to appeal a judge's decision.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote for the court that the "continued failure of the superior courts to provide indigent litigants with a means of obtaining an official verbatim record deprives them of 'meaningful access to the judicial process.'" The court extended its ruling to "any litigant who cannot afford to pay a private reporter," a group that includes most parties in most civil cases statewide.
The decision stops short of mandating electronic recording everywhere. Criminal proceedings and some types of civil hearings will still require a court reporter. But in civil cases where the state cannot supply a reporter, recording equipment already installed in many courthouses can be switched on.
The lawsuit was originally brought by the Family Violence Appellate Project on behalf of domestic violence survivors and other vulnerable litigants. It quickly became a proxy battle between the state's largest public sector union, the Service Employees International Union, which represents court reporters, and California's court systems.
Advocates for recording argued that thousands of people could preserve their right to appeal if courts simply used the recording systems they already have. Union lawyers countered that relying on electronic recording would undermine California's multi-year effort to rebuild the court reporter profession, which was gutted during the 2012 judicial budget crisis.
The ruling applies to every superior court in California, even though only Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and San Diego counties were named as defendants. The shortage of court reporters is particularly acute in rural counties and busy family courts, where hearings involving child custody, child support, and domestic violence often proceed without any official record.
The California Access to Justice Commission estimated that more than one million hearings went unrecorded in a single year. That figure underscores the scale of the problem in a state where access to justice is supposed to be guaranteed regardless of income.
California's court reporter shortage dates back to the 2012 state judicial budget crisis, when many court reporter positions were eliminated. Since then, the state has invested in rebuilding the profession, including licensing "voice writers" who repeat proceedings into voice recognition software. But retirements have outpaced new hires, leaving courts critically understaffed.
In recent years, reform advocates and labor groups have clashed over whether electronic recording is a safe substitute for human reporters. Court reporters argue that only a person can referee a hearing in real time and ensure an accurate transcript. The Supreme Court acknowledged that concern but said it was "sufficient to recognize" that courts are frequently unable to provide indigent litigants with a record, whatever the cause.
Monday's ruling is a significant victory for low-income litigants, but it does not end the debate over how California should produce court records. Courts must still provide verbatim records to those who cannot pay, and court reporters remain essential in criminal cases and many civil matters. As Chief Justice Guerrero noted, the services of a court reporter are "not necessary" to create an accurate record, but the profession will continue to play a vital role where it is available.
For Californians facing family court proceedings, the decision means a missing court reporter no longer has to mean a lost chance to appeal.
