When the pandemic hit, states throughout the country made amendments so courts could conduct business via remote access despite being closed to the public. Now, after three years, states have ended their COVID-19 emergency orders, further facilitating a return to normalcy. But that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been progress along the way. One area of considerable attention centers on the continued use of remote access to state courts now that COVID-19 orders have ceased. And perhaps nowhere is this discussion more prevalent than in California.
In her inaugural State of the Judiciary address, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero praised the benefits of remote access, sharing that nearly all court users who participated in remote proceedings reported having positive experiences:
“Courts held more than half a million civil remote proceedings over a seven month period. And more than 96% of the users during those remote proceedings reported that they had very favorable experiences. Our data shows that all 58 county superior courts are able to hold proceedings remotely in at least one case type, and 39 in all or most case types.”
However, key to this conversation on remote access has been the presence (or lack thereof) of California court reporters. As with other parts of the country, California faces a court reporter shortage. The reason for this shortage differs depending on who you talk to. Court reporters and affiliated organizations allege insufficient hiring and retention efforts by the state. However, judges and court administrators argue the shortage results from an inability to sustain interest in a profession that has failed to produce new licensees to meet demand. Proponents of this argument point to low enrollment in a dwindling number of court reporting schools, low examination pass rates, and retirees outpacing new entrants to the profession. Testifying before the California Joint Hearing Senate Judiciary and Senate Public Safety Committee on March 7, 2023, Shelley Curran, the California Judicial Council’s Chief Policy and Research Officer, noted the following:
“[C]ourts have hired 46 reporters since July 1, 2022. But unfortunately, over a third of these reporters came from other courts. Even more troubling, in the same time period, 97 court reporters left their positions. This represents a net loss of 51 reporters from their positions. And we have a concern that the number of court reporters is going to continue to decline. The National Court Reporters Association reported that the average age of its court reporter members is approximately 55 years old as of June 30, 2022. In California, approximately 44% of all active licenses were issued at least 30 years ago. Only eight court reporting programs recognized by the state remain open.”
The court reporter shortage helped foster opportunity for newer, more innovative means of conducting business, prompting a series of legislative hearings with input from throughout the legal community. The California Senate considered two bills aimed at extending authorization for remote proceedings, Senate Bill 21 and Senate Bill 22. Senate Bill 21 focused on remote proceedings in civil matters. Senate Bill 22, which initially focused on criminal proceedings, faced opposition due to constitutional concerns over defendants’ rights. It was subsequently amended to focus specifically on juvenile and commitment proceedings. Though opponents alleged some courts (the extent of which was unclear) forced participants to appear remotely over objection, legislation proponents insisted that remote proceedings would be voluntary.
As for progress on this matter, the Legislation Committee to the California Judicial Council has since reported that Senate Bills 21 and 22 were ultimately incorporated into Senate Bill 133, which became law in June 2023. In part, Senate Bill 133 extends remote court proceedings to January 1, 2026 for civil, juvenile, and commitment proceedings while requiring that a court reporter be physically present in the courtroom for remote civil trials. The bill also states that parties cannot be forced to participate remotely and affords court discretion to conduct proceedings in person where necessary. The Judicial Council’s Legislation Committee continues to monitor Assembly Bill 1214 and Senate Bill 99 with respect to extending authority for remote criminal proceedings.
Why would someone prefer a remote proceeding? One major benefit is easier access to the courts. Making comment to California’s Public Workgroup, Sheila Hanson, Orange County Superior Court Judge and Chair of California’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, noted the following on remote proceedings:
“This has really enabled a broader and more equitable and efficient access to our courts to our public. As you know, our court users are as diverse as our population. And allowing our public to appear in court remotely, whether they are parties, lawyers, witnesses or jurors, eliminates so many barriers to their access. They no longer need to take time off work to appear. The need and cost to travel is eliminated. And of course, often, the necessity to make childcare arrangements are (sic) avoided.”
This need for remote access coincides with avoiding added costs attributed to the court reporter shortage. Speaking before the California Joint Hearing Senate Judiciary and Senate Public Safety Committee, Attorney Gregory Rizio, President of the Consumer Attorneys of California, shared his experience on the shortage:
“I would like to say that there has been a lack of court reporters in court for us. We are experiencing excessive fees, sometimes from $5,000 to $10,000 a day. And that is making it difficult for us to take certain cases, denying access of justice to a lot of clients who are not in the catastrophic cases.”
Not surprisingly, Attorney Rizio stated that members of the Consumer Attorneys of California and their clients support remote proceedings.
Similar time and cost-saving benefits are also realized through remote depositions. Readback’s Active Reporting service is a non-stenographic remote deposition service that offers certified transcripts in one day, rough drafts in one hour, and access to near-time text during the proceeding, all at low, flat rates. Although not currently accepting requests for California jurisdiction cases, Readback is interested in hearing from California attorneys on their experiences. Have you noticed a court reporter shortage? Where do you stand on remote proceedings? Let us know in the comments section below.
*Disclaimer: Readback is neither a law firm nor a substitution for legal advice. This post should not be taken as legal opinion or advice.
