California Says Record the Hearing: August 2026 Industry Roundup
California's Supreme Court unanimously ruled that when no court reporter is available, trial courts must create an official verbatim record by electronic recording for civil litigants who cannot afford one, a narrow exception to the state's longtime ban. This edition gathers the opinion and the coverage explaining what it changes for the court record.
Alicia Moffatt
· 4 min read
This edition, one story dominates: the California Supreme Court ruled that when a certified court reporter is unavailable, a trial court must create an official verbatim record by electronic recording for an indigent litigant who requests one. The unanimous decision in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court carves a narrow exception into California's longstanding ban on electronic recording of court proceedings.
The three to read first
Supreme Court of California (via Justia)
Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (S288176)
This is the primary source: the court's own opinion. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero held that where a certified reporter is unavailable, a superior court must make an official verbatim record by electronic recording for an indigent litigant who requests one. The decision creates a targeted exception to the statutory prohibition on electronic recording rather than striking the statute down, so read the opinion itself before the secondary coverage to see exactly how narrow the holding is.
CalMatters
No court reporter? Record the hearing, California Supreme Court rules
CalMatters covers the ruling as an access-to-justice story. Chief Justice Guerrero wrote that the prior ban had produced a "two-tiered" system, because hiring a private reporter can cost thousands of dollars per hearing and a reporter shortage has left more than 3 million proceedings without transcription since 2023. The court's reasoning is quotable and direct: a verbatim record created by electronic recording is better than no record at all. This is the best single explainer for a non-specialist audience.
By Ryan Sabalow
ABA Journal
California Supreme Court orders electronic recording for indigent litigants
The American Bar Association's journal covers the ruling as a straightforward mandate: trial courts must provide electronic recordings to civil litigants who cannot afford a private court reporter when an official reporter is unavailable. Coming from the ABA Journal, the coverage signals that the legal profession at large recognizes this as a significant shift in how courts fulfill their duty to create an official record.
More from this edition
The Center Square (via Yahoo News)
A wire-service take framing the ruling as a limited green light for electronic recording when reporter shortages leave indigent litigants without a verbatim record.
By Scott Holland
KALW
Public-radio coverage that ties the decision to the statewide reporter shortage, which has left millions of proceedings without an official record since 2023.
By Elina Graham
Courthouse News Service
A straightforward news report on the holding: lower courts must furnish an official verbatim record, by electronic recording where no reporter is available, for litigants who cannot afford one.
Why we publish this
TRX serves the court community, and part of that service is helping you stay oriented as courts decide who gets an official record and how that record gets made. We read widely, rank by relevance and source authority, and pass along what is worth your attention. This roundup is curated and published when enough worthwhile stories accumulate. If you have a story we should consider for the next edition, send it our way.
