News

There is a quiet crisis unfolding inside American courtrooms that rarely makes headlines but strikes at something fundamental: the right of every litigant, regardless of their means, to have an accurate record of what happened to them in court.

The numbers are stark. According to the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers, the stenographer workforce has declined 21 percent over the last decade, leaving just 23,000 stenographers nationwide. Enrollment in stenographic schools is down 74 percent, drying up the very pipeline the profession depends on, and 75 percent of lawyers and courts report difficulty scheduling proceedings because of shortages. 

The consequences fall hardest on those least equipped to absorb them. When a stenographic court reporter isn’t available (or unaffordable) and no alternative is permitted, hearings proceed anyway. Off the record. Unreviewable. In California alone, more than two million hearings in unlimited civil, family law, and probate proceedings have taken place without a verbatim record since April 2023, according to the Judicial Branch of California. Those figures are not abstractions. They represent custody disputes, restraining orders, guardianship hearings — moments that alter the trajectories of people’s lives —with nothing to show for what was said or decided.

What’s encouraging is that states are beginning to act. Not in lockstep, and not without debate, but the direction is clear. Legislatures and courts across the country are recognizing that protecting access to justice means evolving how the record is captured and, importantly, by whom.

Last week, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that crystallizes the stakes of this debate. Two legal nonprofits — the Family Violence Appellate Project and Bay Area Legal Aid — urged the court to issue an order entitling civil litigants to electronic recording when a live court reporter is unavailable, arguing that a state law banning electronic recording of certain proceedings violates the California Constitution when an official reporter cannot be provided and a litigant cannot afford to hire one privately.

California is one of the most restrictive states in the country on this question, and its shortage is among the most acute. Court reporters have been triaged toward felony trials where their presence is legally required, leaving cases involving child custody, child support, conservatorship, guardianship, and debt collection regularly without any record at all. California needs an additional 458 full-time equivalent court reporters to meet current caseload demands, and nearly half of active licenses were issued at least 30 years ago.

The California Supreme Court has itself observed that the lack of a verbatim record will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to appeal. The court that made that observation is now being asked to do something about it. Whatever it decides, the hearing itself signals that the era of looking away from this problem is over.

Texas has taken a different but equally significant path. This year, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1538, directing the Office of Court Administration to conduct a comprehensive study on digital court reporting, evaluating its cost, access, accuracy, and effectiveness, analyzing how it’s used in other states, and developing recommendations for potential changes to statutes, rules, and standards. The office must report its findings to the governor and legislative leadership by Oct. 1.

The need is urgent. Over the past 20 years, the number of Certified Shorthand Reporters in Texas has declined by 14 percent while the number of trial court benches has increased by more than 14 percent, and nearly half of current CSRs were first certified 30 or more years ago, meaning retirements could further shrink the workforce in coming years.

Texas’s approach is methodical and appropriately deliberate. Rather than mandating change by fiat, the legislature is investing in the evidence base first by commissioning the kind of rigorous, independent research that should inform any policy of this consequence.

While California deliberates and Texas studies, Georgia has already acted. Effective January 1, 2026, Georgia’s House Bill 179 authorizes the use of digital recording systems for certain proceedings, including felony trials, misdemeanor cases, civil cases, and proceedings in the Georgia Statewide Business Court, as an alternative to traditional court reporting.

Critically, the law doesn’t abandon professional standards. Georgia tests all prospective court reporters whether using stenographic, voice, or digital methods in the same room with the same test, and upon passing, each earns the Certified Court Reporter designation. The method may differ. The standard does not.

Georgia’s model is instructive precisely because it refuses the false choice. It does not say digital reporting replaces stenography. It says that trained, certified professionals using proven technology can expand the capacity of the system to serve everyone — not just those who can pay a private reporter’s hourly rate when the court’s reporter is elsewhere.

What connects California’s courtroom crisis, Texas’s legislative study, and Georgia’s reformed law is a shared recognition that the question was never stenography versus digital reporting. The question has always been: How do we ensure that every litigant — in every courtroom, in every case — has access to an accurate record?

AAERT’s 2025 Court Reporting Industry Trends Report urges legal stakeholders to support regulatory updates that remove barriers to digital reporting and other methods of capture, expand certification programs, and modernize court reporting infrastructure, arguing that a balanced approach integrating stenography, digital, and voice methods of capture is the only path that ensures the sustainability of court reporting and protects access to justice for all litigants.

This argument is not about technology for technology’s sake, nor about diminishing a skilled profession that has served the justice system for more than a century.

Stenographers are irreplaceable in many contexts, and the shortage makes every skilled practitioner more valuable, not less, but a system that allows millions of hearings to proceed without any record — because only one method of capture is authorized and that method is in short supply — is a system that has prioritized process over people.

The states meeting this moment are choosing differently. They are choosing to ask what justice requires and then build the tools to deliver it.

That’s the right question. And it’s long overdue.