Imagine you’re in court, trying to work out your loved one’s estate amid family drama. Or fighting for a life-saving protective order against an abuser. Or navigating a nasty child custody battle. After all this time and money and effort, you believe the court missed something crucial and want to appeal the initial ruling. There’s one problem: there’s no transcript, or verbatim record, of the proceeding, and a successful appeal is virtually impossible.
In California, home to the nation’s largest court system of nearly 40 million court users, this nightmare is a reality under current state law.
Having worked in California’s court system, I’ve seen how under current law, court users cannot get a record of their proceedings and are deprived of arguably more meaningful access to justice. In one instance, an attorney faced a routine hearing he expected to win. When he learned at the last minute that no court reporter was available, he proceeded, rather than incurring more time and costs for his client. The judge unexpectedly ruled against him. On appeal, the attorney attempted to point out a critical error made by the trial court, but without a transcript, the higher court had little to review the claim. He lost the appeal.
This is not an isolated case. The issue stems from a severe shortage of certified court reporters. While electronic recording—a digital record that can be transcribed—is available, California law prohibits its use in most cases,[i] with the rationale that court reporters ensure more accurate records. In practice, with fewer and fewer reporters, the electronic recording ban leaves thousands of litigants without any record at all. It’s unsustainable and unjust. Electronic recording should be allowed any time a reporter is unavailable.
Today, only about 4,625 court reporters are active statewide,[ii] half of whom are nearing retirement.[iii] In response, courts have offered generous salaries—the median is over $200,000[iv]—plus recruitment incentives and retention bonuses. Still, they’re losing more reporters than they’re hiring. The private sector is more lucrative. And it’s easy to imagine people aren’t applying because they fear AI will replace these jobs.
Most cases other than felonies and juvenile cases[v] proceed without court reporters, unless the parties can pay thousands of dollars for one. From 2023 to 2025, roughly 1.8 million hearings statewide had no official record.[vi] That’s 1.8 million hearings with lower chances of successful appeals, a staggering statistic of seemingly incomplete justice.
Interestingly, California courts may use electronic recordings when a court reporter is unavailable in less serious cases, like infractions, misdemeanors, and small civil cases.[vii] Yet most family law, probate, and civil cases (e.g., contract, personal injury, business)—where stakes can be life-changing—proceed without a record.[viii] Meanwhile, most states and the federal courts use electronic recording technology.[ix]
One solution is to expand electronic recording to all cases where a court reporter is unavailable. California law should allow courts to use electronic recording equipment, sometimes already installed in their courtrooms, so hearings can proceed with a record.
To be clear, court reporters are preferable. They are professionally trained to ensure a fair, accurate, and reliable record, can ask witnesses to repeat themselves, and clarify the record in real time. Technology can also make mistakes.[x] Courts should continue to earnestly recruit more court reporters. But with a shrinking pool of reporters, the reality has become a choice between potentially imperfect records or no records at all. As reporters become unavailable, courts should be able to use electronic recording.
Lawmakers know about this growing problem, but repeated legislative attempts to lift the ban have stalled due to resistance from court reporter unions.[xi] It has reached the point that legal services organizations[xii] have brought a case before the California Supreme Court to determine whether the statutory ban on electronic recording is constitutional.
Whether the legislature changes the law or the court overturns it, the ban is ultimately unworkable and unjust.
First, under the ban, court users—from the grieving child settling his parent’s estate to the survivor trying to get a restraining order—are less able to get a record and have a less meaningful chance to appeal and be made whole. This hinders the administration of justice.
Second, the ban prevents higher courts from reviewing new or novel legal issues in cases without a trial court transcript. This impedes the development of law.
Third, the ban seemingly creates a two-tiered justice system: parties with means can hire a reporter and appeal, while those without means cannot. It arguably undermines due process and equal protection under the law, posing an access-to-justice issue.
Justice cannot fully exist without a record. As court reporters become increasingly scarce, allowing electronic recording is a necessary step to furthering justice for all Californians. May the record reflect that.
[i] California Code, Government Code § 69957 (as amended by Stats. 2012, ch. 170, § 1).
[ii] Judicial Branch of California, “Shortage of Court Reporters in California,” Courts of California: Research & Data, updated June 2025, accessed August 31, 2025, https://courts.ca.gov/news-reference/research-data/shortage-court-reporters-california
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Judicial Branch of California, Fact Sheet: Shortage of Certified Shorthand Reporters in California, June 2024, accessed October 24, 2025, https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/fact-sheet-shortage-of-certified-shorthand-reporters-june2024.pdf
[vi] Judicial Branch of California, “Shortage of Court Reporters in California,” June 2025, accessed October 24, 2025, https://courts.ca.gov/news-reference/research-data/shortage-court-reporters-california#majority-without-verbatim-record.
[vii] Cal. Gov’t Code § 69957.
[viii] Judicial Branch of California, “Shortage of Court Reporters in California.”
[ix] Ryan Sabalow, “California Doesn’t Have Enough Court Reporters. Their Unions Are Fighting Substitutes,” CalMatters, June 26, 2025; updated June 30, 2025, accessed August 31, 2025, https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/06/california-court-reporter-shortage/
[x] Melissa B. Buchman, “Don’t Let Courts Force You into Trusting Your Life to a Tape Recorder,” Capitol Weekly, July 8, 2024, accessed August 31, 2025, https://capitolweekly.net/dont-let-courts-force-you-into-trusting-your-life-to-a-tape-recorder/
[xi] Sabalow, “California Doesn’t Have Enough Court Reporters.”
[xii] Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court, No. S288176 (Cal. Feb. 19, 2025), Supreme Court Minutes: Family Violence Appellate Project v. S.C. (Feb. 19, 2025), accessed August 31, 2025, https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=3118021&doc_no=S288176&request_token=NiIwLSEnTkw5W1BZSCNNWExIMFg0UDxTKyBeQz1SUCAgCg%3D%3Dhttps://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=3118021&doc_no=S288176&request_token=NiIwLSEnTkw5W1BZSCNNWExIMFg0UDxTKyBeQz1SUCAgCg%3D%3D