Judges want lawmakers to address court reporter shortage

Judges are again mobilizing to urge legislative changes they say will help them deal with the shortage of court reporters.

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hear a bill that could allow electronic recording of court proceedings and potentially change the requirements for becoming a certified court reporter in California. SB 662 stalled in that committee during the 2023 legislative session, but its author, Sen. Susan Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, revived it this year.

“The current shortfall in the number of Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) in the California trial courts is a constitutional crisis, with tens of thousands of your constituents each month deprived of the possibility of meaningful access to justice for the lack of a verbatim record of proceedings,” wrote Los Angeles County Superior Court Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner and Executive Officer/Clerk of Court David W. Slayton in a Jan. 10 letter to the members of the committee and the Judicial Council. “We implore this committee to act now to solve this crisis with a readily available solution: pass without haste SB 662 (Rubio) from committee.”

San Francisco Superior Court Presiding Judge Anne-Christine Massullo and Court Executive Officer Brandon E. Riley raised similar points in a news release on Tuesday urging lawmakers to pass the bill.

“The court currently has 15 vacancies for court reporters – and despite generous recruitment and retention incentives, including a $30,000 signing bonus – the court was unable to hire even one new Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR) in all of 2023,” they wrote.

The battle over SB 662 is the latest in a series of skirmishes over changing the rules around court reporters in the state. A coalition of labor groups and organizations representing court reporters oppose it.

“We agree that we need a better solution in our system for ensuring accurate records for litigants in court, but this bill’s proposed solution is not an adequate answer nor an inexpensive one, and given the current fiscal state of California, it is not the answer,” Stephanie Leslie, president of the Deposition Reporters Association of California, wrote in an email.

Leslie added, “We have confirmed that there is great interest from would-be students in becoming court reporters, and we have implemented several solutions statewide that are just beginning to bear fruit. In conjunction with our efforts, we need more programs to support growth in our industry, yet there has been no effort by a governor, legislature, the community colleges, or the judiciary for decades to encourage community colleges to offer court reporting programs. As a result, only eight such programs currently exist.”

Supporters of SB 662 said shortages and a “two-tiered” system are already the status quo for most litigants in California, with the added difficulty that many with the means to hire a reporter can’t find one. Courts, often led by Los Angeles County, have long complained that even six-figure salaries and large bonuses are not drawing more young people into a field where the average worker is a woman in her 50s.

“With the declining availability of California-licensed court reporters, California trial courts are challenged to recruit and retain court reporters to meet the needs of court users and legal requirements. In an effort to increase court reporters in trial courts, courts are implementing a variety of employment incentives including salary increases, signing bonuses, retention bonuses, finder’s fees, and more,” according to a recruitment dashboard posted recently by the Judicial Council.

According to the Judicial Council’s figures, 75% of courts in California are recruiting court reporters, with most offering signing bonuses, often along with other incentives like finder’s fees and higher salaries. But when they do manage to hire court reporters, nearly half are recruited from other courts. Most of the rest come from private industry, with very few new people entering the field.

SB 662 would allow the Court Reporters Board of California “to evaluate the necessity of requiring applicants who have passed either the National Court Reporters Association’s or the National Verbatim Reporters Association’s certification examination to demonstrate competency as a certified shorthand reporter.” The board could consider replacing California’s state-specific exam with either of these tests as a way to remove “a barrier to licensure.”

The Appropriations Committee in each house evaluates bills with a potentially significant price tag. A Senate Appropriations Committee analysis from last May found SB 662 could require courts to spend millions in the short term for audio recording equipment. But it also found, “There may be costs savings to the courts as the electronic equipment is permanently purchased and implemented, making live-transcription expenditures unnecessary.”