|
The Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, in response to the California Supreme Court’s
recently issued unanimous opinion in Family Violence Appellate Project v.
Superior Court of Contra Costa County, et al. (2026) 20 Cal.5th 564 (FVAP),
has issued General Order 2026-GEN-016-00 , authorizing and establishing a process for making audio
recordings the official record of family law, probate and unlimited civil
proceedings when an official court reporter or official reporter pro tempore
is unavailable. The newly issued General Order, effective Nov. 5, aligns with
the Supreme Court’s opinion that superior courts have a “ministerial duty” to
provide litigants access to a verbatim record of their proceedings when they
are unable to afford or locate a private court reporter and a court-employed
court reporter is unavailable due to the ongoing and persistent court
reporter shortage.
The new general order supersedes and vacates General Order
2024-GEN-011-00, issued in September 2024, and establishes a
revised process for parties to request electronic recordings as the official
record of eligible proceedings.
“Justice does not end when a judge rules from the bench. It must remain open
to review, and review depends on an accurate record of what was said,” stated
Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II. “The California Supreme Court has
affirmed that a verbatim record is no luxury; it is the foundation on which
the right to appeal rests. No litigant’s ability to challenge a decision
affecting their family, their finances, or their livelihood should turn on
whether a court reporter happened to be in the courtroom that day. Even as we
work to recruit and retain the court reporters our courtrooms need, this
General Order guarantees that the record will be preserved, so that the
promise of appellate review and our commitment to equal access to justice are
preserved for every resident of Los Angeles County.”
Starting Nov. 5: How to Request an Audio Recording as the Official Record
in Family Law, Probate and Unlimited Civil Proceedings if No Court Reporter
Was Present
Effective Thursday, Nov. 5, parties in family law, probate and unlimited
civil proceedings where a court reporter was not present may request that an
audio recording be the official verbatim record of their proceeding. The
process works in three steps:
Step 1:
The party must complete CRSU 39 . On the
form, parties must state under penalty of perjury that the proceeding was not
reported by an official court reporter or official reporter pro tempore and
that they could not reasonably afford to hire a private court reporter or a
private court reporter was not reasonably available.
Step 2: The party must file the request form with the Court. Parties
may efile the form or
file it in person at any Clerk’s Office if they are self-represented or
exempt from electronic filing. Upon the Court verifying that an official
court reporter or official reporter pro tempore was not present to report the
proceeding, the audio recording of the proceeding will be made available for
purchase. Requests for audio recordings where a court reporter was present
will be denied, and the requestor will be notified.
Step 3: Within two court days of filing the form, the requesting party
must visit the electronic
recordings website to request the audio recording or a transcript
of the recording. Instructions on how to register and purchase the audio
recording or a transcript of the recording are included on the website. The
current fee for audio recordings is $40. Additional fees apply for certified
transcripts of audio recordings.
Under the
general order, all family law, probate, and unlimited civil proceedings will
be electronically recorded, but the recording will be locked, meaning the
recording will not be automatically available to the public or designated as
the official record of a proceeding unless requested through the process
described above. When a certified court reporter, whether court-employed or
privately retained, is present to report a proceeding, the recording will
remain locked, and the party must request the verbatim record through the
existing process of obtaining it through the court reporter.
Recordings that are requested through this process will be
designated as the official verbatim record of the proceeding. An audio
recording is not a written transcript. Parties do not need to qualify for a
court fee waiver to be eligible but must declare under penalty of perjury
that the party was unable to reasonably afford to hire a private court
reporter for the proceeding or was unable to secure the presence of a private
court reporter due to unavailability. As the Supreme Court noted, many people
who can afford routine court fees still cannot afford the high cost of a
private court reporter, and courts are to be flexible in assessing a
litigant’s ability to pay.
Only parties and attorneys associated with the specific proceeding may
request that a recording be the official record through this process. This
process does not apply to non-parties to the case. Others seeking access to a
recording that has not been unlocked, including members of the media, must
submit a motion to the judicial officer who presided over the proceeding for
access.
This process does not apply to infraction, misdemeanor, CARE Court, and
limited civil proceedings, where litigants may continue to access the
electronic recording of their proceeding without the above-mentioned form.
Litigants in felony criminal and juvenile proceedings will continue to have a
court reporter present to take down the verbatim record and must request the
verbatim record directly through the court reporter.
More information on the new process, as well as the existing process for
obtaining records for other proceedings not impacted by the General Order,
can be found here.
Why the Court Is Making This Change
In 2018, the California Supreme Court recognized in Jameson v. Desta that
the absence of a verbatim record will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s
ability to have an appeal decided on the merits. That burden has fallen
hardest on litigants in family law, probate and unlimited civil cases, where
state law has long prohibited electronic recording in the absence of a court
reporter, even as electronic recording has been used without incident for
decades in misdemeanor, limited civil and infraction cases. With private
court reporters costing up to $3,300 a day, a verbatim record has too often
been out of reach for low-income and self-represented litigants, creating a
two-tiered system of justice in which the ability to appeal depended on the
ability to pay.
In September 2024, after legislation that would have authorized electronic
recording in all civil cases, including family law, probate and unlimited
civil, failed to pass in the Legislature, the Court issued General Order
2024-GEN-011-00 to provide a constitutional safety net for litigants whose
fundamental rights were at stake. That order allowed judicial officers
presiding over certain family law, probate, and civil contempt proceedings to
direct an electronic recording be made as the official record when no court
reporter was available, but only after making a series of case-by-case
findings, including that the proceeding implicated fundamental rights or
liberty interests and that the requesting party could not secure a private
court reporter. While the order was an important first step, its narrow scope
left many litigants who could not afford a court reporter without a verbatim
record.
On Aug. 10, 2026, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Patricia
Guerrero, the California Supreme Court held in Family Violence Appellate
Project v. Superior Court that superior courts
have a ministerial duty to provide indigent litigants with meaningful access
to an official verbatim record of proceedings in all civil cases, including
by means of electronic recording when an official court reporter is
unavailable. The Supreme Court made clear that this duty extends beyond
litigants who qualify for fee waivers to all who cannot afford to hire a
private court reporter, and it recognized that a verbatim record created by
electronic recording is “better than no record at all.” Because the Court’s
2024 General Order relied on a judicial officer's case-by-case findings, it
is too narrow to satisfy the duty the Supreme Court described, which is why
the Court has replaced it with a new general order that takes effect on Nov.
5.
2026-GEN-016-00 establishes a broader process for eligible parties to request
recordings and have them designated as the official verbatim record, helping
address barriers to appellate review for litigants who cannot afford private
court reporting services and when a court reporter is not available. Without
a verbatim record, parties may face significant challenges in appealing a
court decision. Since Jan. 1, 2024, the Court has held more than 830,000
hearings in family law, probate, and unlimited civil for which no verbatim
record was available.
“Today's order means that every litigant in family law, probate, and
unlimited civil proceedings in Los Angeles County has true access to a
verbatim record of their proceeding,” said Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
David W. Slayton. “Court reporters remain our first choice, and we will keep
investing in bringing more of them into our courtrooms. But when one isn’t
available, litigants who need a record to protect their rights now have a
clear and simple path to get one.”
Ongoing Efforts to Address the Court Reporter Shortage
The Court deeply values its court reporter workforce and does not intend to
replace them with electronic recording. Court reporters will continue to be
assigned to criminal felony and juvenile proceedings, and to additional case
types where available.
The Court remains committed to building its court reporter ranks through
robust recruitment, retention, and training efforts. This includes continuing
to offer financial incentives
such as signing and retention bonuses, relocation, student loan and equipment
assistance, and base salary increases. The Court also created and funded its
own internal training program
to build its own internal pipeline of court reporters. Additionally, the
Court has proactively explored other innovative approaches to modernizing the
profession, such as offering remote work opportunities through the Court’s
remote official court reporter pilot, authorized under Assembly Bill 3013,
where 24 full-time reporters remotely report proceedings in participating
courtrooms.
These efforts have brought moderate success: the Court has hired 87 court
reporters since October 2024, but it has not kept pace with the need. Over
the same period, 74 reporters left the Court, leaving a modest net gain of
just 13 court reporters over two years. With three-quarters of the Court’s
reporters now eligible to retire, the Court will not be able to provide court
reporters for every family law, probate and unlimited civil proceeding in
which a litigant who cannot afford a private reporter requests a verbatim
record. The General Order taking effect Nov. 5 will therefore ensure that the
Court can uphold its ministerial duty to provide a record to family law,
probate, and unlimited civil litigants who cannot afford to hire a private
court reporter.
|
Posts
