A DAY WITHOUT A COURT REPORTER

Written by Timothy M. Kowal^*

"Don’t forget to get a court reporter."

Now that the court reporter shortage has reached an acute stage, this advice is becoming more easily said than done. The gap between the pace of retirements and entries into the field leaves California with a court reporter shortfall of around 3,000 — a gap that cannot be filled by the trickle of new entrants annually numbering a mere three dozen. By late 2022, the Los Angeles Superior Court — serving 40% of the state’s population — stopped providing reporters in probate and family law matters. When I would dispense my advice, probate and family law attorneys would be nonplused: "Court reporters are already provided for us," they’d say. But they don’t say it anymore.

Court transcripts guarantee important interests, not merely private rights but the public’s right to open trials and the interest of the integrity of the courts. Consider just a small handful of recent cases that shaped American social and legal culture from far-flung trial courts, and how their reception might be different with less transparency: the Minnesota state court trial of George Floyd’s killer, Derek Chauvin; the Georgia state court trial of Ahmaud Arbery’s killers; the Wisconsin state court trial of Kyle Rittenhouse; the New York state court trial of Harvey Weinstein; the Illinois state court trial of Jussie Smollett; the California district court trial in the "Varsity Blues" scandal; and the New York state court trial of Donald Trump in the real estate loan fraud case. How might it affect public perception of landmark trials, held in courts hither and yon, without access to court transcripts? And imagine enforcing the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, without a transcript of that witness’s testimony.