The Significance From 2015 to 2021, the number of certified shorthand reporters in California has declined from 6,960 to 5,854, according to state Department of Consumer Affairs data. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ job outlook for the profession projects little or no change from 2021 to 2031. The California court CEOs noted in their news release that “other options need to be available to the courts” when they cannot provide court reporters. “We are ready, able and willing to work with all stakeholders on finding ways to ensure that all litigants who need a record have access to one.” Rosalina Nava, a court reporter for L.A. County Superior Court said the executives' arguments are red herrings meant to make a move to electronic recording look inevitable. She asserted that court administrators have not actively recruited on major job sites or, until recently, in direct mailings to state licensees. “What we think is that having a job listing is not the same thing as actually recruiting,” Nava said. “We just don’t feel like they’re actually doing that.” Earlier this year, California legislators passed a law that will license voice writing, where court reporters speak into masks using software that transcribes into text. However, in August, a bill that would have extended the use of remote proceedings in civil court cases died after the Assembly tacked on amendments the legislation’s author said caused the bill to do “more harm than good.” Prior to the ill-fated bill, in 2021, lawmakers reached an agreement with the Judicial Council, attorneys and unions representing court reporters and interpreters to continue using remote technology after the expiration of pandemic-related emergency orders. Court employees and court reporters have argued that the remote technology isn’t reliable. At a May 2021 legislative hearing, interpreters and court reporters said video participants in proceedings were shut out and dropped from hearings, including one litigant whose image went dark after his cellphone minutes ran out.
Yet, Jim Cudahy, a senior consultant for Virtual Inc. and former president of the National Court Reporters Association, said the court reporters don’t necessarily have any particular problem with remote reporting. “[It's] to prevent larger [court reporter] firms from having a large footprint in their state [and] making use of nonstenographic reporting in the state. That’s the end goal of that type of effort in my view,” Cudahy said.
The Information
Want to know more? Here's what we've discovered in the ALM Global Newsroom: Labor Union, Judicial Leaders Draw Battle Lines on Future of Court Reporters No Will, No Way: Correcting the Record on the LA Superior Court Reporter ‘Shortage’ Citing Shortage, LA Pulls Court Reporters From Civil, Family Law Cases Legislature Poised to Authorize 'Voice Writers' in California Courtrooms Bill Extending Remote Court Access in Civil Cases Dies in Legislature There’s Fewer Small Court Reporting Agencies—But Don't Blame Technology for That State Lawmakers Reject Proposal to Retain Remote Court Technology Post-Pandemic Court Reporter Agencies Are Betting on Remote Reporting Well Beyond the Pandemic How California Made a Last-Minute Deal to Expand Remote Court Proceedings
The Forecast News of court reporter shortages have come out of jurisdictions including Texas, New York, Arkansas, South Dakota, Florida and Vermont. Without changes to the statutory framework for court reporting, the California court CEOs assert, “all courts will face the inevitable day, already seen by a few California courts, of not having enough court reporters to cover the mandated felony criminal and juvenile dependency and delinquency cases.” Court administrators, lawmakers and court reporter advocates will likely want to look westward to see how the debate continues to take shape in California. | 