What happens when an industry can’t get out of its own way? Opportunity is lost. Results are delayed. The process slows to a halt. Finger pointing and blame shifting lay waste to action and accountability. In other words, you get a broken and incredibly inefficient system.
A Broken System
When it comes to capturing the record, it’s what’s missing that matters most. The court reporter is missing, so a professional shortage dooms the appellate process before it even begins. The transcript is missing, so the court’s failure to provide an official verbatim record makes a recipe for disaster. The willingness to embrace technology is missing, so legislative inaction, antiquated rules, and misguided statutes feed a stubborn resistance to alternative methods and modern-day solutions that are routinely practiced in other parts of the country.
The result? We already know – A broken and inefficient system. It’s a problem that has plagued the California judicial process for years.
How inefficient? Well, according to a report by the California Judicial Council, since 2023, there have been more than 3,000,000 — yes, that’s six zeroes — proceedings without a verbatim record.
The assumed risk in failing to obtain a verbatim record is clear: No record, no recourse. It’s a point that’s understood in the case law where the California Supreme Court has acknowledged three tenets of appellate law: “[F]irst, take great care to prepare a complete record; second, if it is not in the record, it did not happen; and third, when in doubt, refer back to rules one and two.” Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 n.11 (2018)(quoting Protect Our Water, et al. v. County of Merced, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 (2003)).
Understandably, this risk can be too burdensome for litigants, particularly indigent litigants, to bear. Seeking an alternative method to capture the official record is a matter of common sense. However, intransigence toward electronic recording, as realized through the limitations of California Government Code, Section 69957 and the defeat of Senate Bill 662, places courts in the unenviable position of trying to conduct business while staying true to legislative policy that is not fit for present-day practice. It would take a landmark decision to force the issue and pressure the state to reevaluate its stance toward the role legal technology can play in producing a verbatim record.
A Decision is Made, a Change is Necessary
In early August 2026, the California Supreme Court issued a major decision, drawing a line in the sand on electronic recording as a viable response to California’s court reporter shortage. The court’s opinion in Family Violence Appellate Project et al. v. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County et al., No. S288176 (2026) (“Family Violence”) invokes case precedent and the in forma pauperis doctrine to find an exception to California Government Code 69957. The decision orders a writ of mandate directing state courts to allow electronic recordings in all matters where a court reporter is unavailable. Failure to do so, according to the court, positions litigants to choose between two “unpaletable” options: either delay the proceeding or forgo a verbatim record altogether.
Given the statutory restrictions of Section 69957, the legislative defeat of Senate Bill 662, and the court reporter shortage, litigants risked having to traverse the California appellate process with no proof of record. Instead of availing itself of electronic recordings, California left litigants with little, if any, solution. As the court noted, choosing a continuance may require time an indigent litigant may not have. On the other hand, moving forward with no verbatim record at all could, as highlighted in case precedent, prove “fatal to a litigant’s ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court.” Jameson at 608-09.
The court in Family Violence acknowledged this conundrum, noting that,
“A continuance necessarily delays the litigant’s pursuit of justice, the need for which may be urgent. Going forward without a means to create an official verbatim record renders many trial court errors unreviewable, and hence uncorrectable, on appeal.”
The court further held that, consistent with case precedent, the in forma pauperis doctrine grants state courts
“. . . have the inherent discretion to facilitate an indigent civil litigant’s equal access to the judicial process even when the relevant statutory provisions that impose fees or other expenses do not themselves contain an exception for needy litigants.” Family Violence (quoting Jameson).
Although county courts stepped in to issue general orders with respect to electronic recordings, such access came with additional hurdles for indigent litigants to overcome. These general orders may have been a step in the right direction, but their practical effectiveness was less clear. A litigant in Los Angeles County Superior Court, for example, would have to meet six conditions, including considerations for how the litigant’s fundamental rights and liberties may be impacted, before they could utilize electronic recording. As the court noted, these general orders placed undue influence in questions deemed inconsequential under Jameson:
“[T]he general orders are limited to proceedings involving fundamental rights or liberty interests, and they require a court to make findings regarding the likely content of the proceeding and the possibility of continuance. These general orders therefore fall short of what Jameson and the in forma pauperis doctrine require. Neither Jameson nor the in forma pauperis doctrine is limited to cases involving fundamental rights or liberty interests; they reflect the broader policy of ensuring meaningful access to the judicial system as a whole.”
Ultimately, the shortcomings of county-level general orders left room for the Supreme Court to approach the matter from a different angle.
A Shift in Focus to Issue a New Mandate
The Family Violence decision shifts the conversation away from fundamental rights, fundamental liberties, and the litigant’s inability to afford a court reporter toward the simpler, more practical matter of providing equal access to the appellate process when a court reporter is unavailable. In doing so, the decision effectively removes questions of indigency and unavailability from the court’s analysis. Rather, the court focused on the inherent powers of the in forma pauperis doctrine and the resulting Jameson mandate that courts preserve the right to appeal by providing indigent litigants with a verbatim record. A footnote in Family Violence outlines the court’s approach, while leaving the door open for greater constitutional considerations at a later time:
“Because we conclude the in forma pauperis doctrine applies, we need not consider petitioners’ contention that constitutional principles of due process or equal protection would require the use of electronic recording to create an official verbatim record in some or all cases involving indigent litigants. (See Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649, 656, fn. 6.) However, it is not hard to imagine a due process or equal protection dimension to this dispute. . . We do not foreclose future consideration of these constitutional principles in an appropriate case.”
The court further declined to consider what qualifies as court reporter unavailability for matters pertaining to the in forma pauperis doctrine:
“We also need not exhaustively define unavailability in this context, as amici curiae urge this court to do. The relevant inquiry is whether an indigent litigant would be deprived ‘of the equal access to justice that in forma pauperis status was intended to afford’ if electronic recording were not used. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 622.)”
Nor did the court seek to provide a limiting definition for what qualifies as indigent pursuant to the in forma pauperis doctrine. Rather, the court invited a case-by-case analysis driven more by a litigant’s inability to afford a court reporter, regardless of income:
“[W]e do not imply some absolute standard of indigency. Instead, any litigant who cannot afford to pay a private reporter may apply to proceed in forma pauperis and qualify as indigent for this purpose.”
By removing questions of constitutionality, unavailability, and indigency from the equation, Family Violence relies on case precedent and inherent judicial authority to provide a common-sense response to the court reporter shortage. Case precedent mandates that courts provide equal access to the appellate process. Equal access includes the matter of providing a verbatim record. Authorizing access to electronic recordings is a foreseeable extension of the Jameson mandate “that an official court reporter, or other valid means to create an official verbatim record for purposes of appeal, must generally be made available to in forma pauperis litigants upon request.” Jameson at 599 (emphasis added).
By focusing on Jameson, the court inferred an exception to Section 69957 and identified a duty on the part of state courts to provide an electronic recording as the verbatim record where necessary. According to the court, this conclusion is not left to debate:
“If a court is unable to use a court reporter, the in forma pauperis doctrine requires the court to imply an exception to section 69957 in that proceeding and use electronic recording, if such an exception is required to provide an indigent litigant with access to an official verbatim record. Courts have no discretion in this regard. It is their duty under Jameson and the in forma pauperis doctrine to provide indigent litigants with some way of obtaining an official verbatim record of proceedings.”
Common Sense for a Common Problem
At the center of it all, aside from legal analysis and case precedent, one line from the Family Violence decision puts everything into perspective:
“As a technical matter, the services of a court reporter are not necessary to create an accurate and reliable verbatim record of trial court proceedings.”
Technology – in this instance, electronic recording – can provide a viable common-sense solution to the common problems of the court reporter shortage. When presented with this option, the court saw no need to deny a proven alternative method to capture the record. Nor was there need for any zero sum comparisons of traditional versus modern practices. The holding in Family Violence allows electronic recording as an alternative solution for litigants who, for whatever reason, can neither access nor afford a traditional court reporter.
The cause of the court reporter shortage is not the litigant’s concern. The alleged superiority of one method over the other was not the focus of the court’s decision in Family Violence. That is for the litigant to decide. As aptly acknowledged in a footnote to the Family Violence decision:
“We need not consider the comparative risks and benefits of the two approaches. It is sufficient to note that a verbatim record created by electronic recording is better than no record at all.” (emphasis added).
In a world where technology can afford greater access, the Family Violence decision might signal the beginning of a new era in California judicial proceedings.
In the future, will this new era be limited to electronic recordings? Perhaps not. Although Family Violence focused its discussion on electronic recording, the overriding principle and mandate to provide equal access to a verbatim record arguably transcends methods of capture. It stands to reason that additional methods will continue to gain traction where concerns for truthfulness and accuracy of the record are adequately satisfied. Only time will tell.
The Next Phase in Recording: Readback Active Reporting
Common sense drives quality results. Readback Active Reporting brings a common-sense approach to record capture that prioritizes technological efficiency guided by human oversight. Readback utilizes state of the art speech-to-text technology to capture the record while a team of human transcribers simultaneously vets the transcript for accuracy. A human Guardian oversees the proceeding to ensure that the process runs smoothly. The results are quick turnaround times, accurate transcripts, and quality service. Questions? Visit the Readback website to learn more about this next phase in verbatim recording.
*Disclaimer: Readback is neither a law firm nor a substitution for legal advice. This post should not be taken as legal opinion or advice.
