Who Gets a Verbatim Record? May 2026 Industry Roundup
California's Supreme Court takes up whether banning electronic court recording denies poor litigants a verbatim record, a respected institute reframes access to justice as a burden problem, and the bar debates AI note-takers. Our ranked read this edition.
Alicia Moffatt
· 5 min read
The thread running through this edition is the record itself: who is entitled to a verbatim account of what happened in court, and who decides how it gets captured. A case before California's highest court puts that question directly, and the rest of this edition circles the same tension between automation, human judgment, and access. TheRecordXchange® reads the coverage so the court community can stay oriented. Below are the stories worth your time, ranked by relevance to the courts we serve and by the authority of the source.
The three to read first
Supreme Court of California
Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (S288176) — oral arguments set for June 3, 2026
California's Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Government Code section 69957's prohibition on electronic recording violates the state constitution when no official court reporter is available and a litigant cannot afford a private one. The petitioners argue that leaving low-income litigants without a word-for-word record denies them due process and equal protection. For anyone who believes a complete, affordable record is foundational to a fair hearing, this is the case to watch this year. Oral arguments are public and webcast on June 3, 2026.
IAALS
Access to Justice is Less About Access and More About Burden
The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System argues that the access-to-justice gap is best understood not as a problem of getting people into the courthouse, but of the burdens placed on them once they are there. It is a useful reframing for any court weighing where technology genuinely lightens the load versus where it adds friction. The piece grounds a debate that too often stays abstract.
ABA Journal
Use humans, not AI, to take meeting notes, attorneys say
Attorneys are urging caution on automated note-takers, warning that confidentiality, privilege, and accuracy concerns make a human the safer choice for sensitive records. The argument maps directly onto the questions courts face about where speech-to-text automation belongs and where human review remains essential. It is a measured counterpoint to the rush toward AI capture.
More from this edition
Law360 Pulse
A new suit highlights both the promise and the pitfalls as self-represented litigants increasingly turn to general-purpose AI for legal help.
MSN
Court stenographers make the list, a reminder that skilled human court reporting remains a well-paid and in-demand profession even as automation advances.
TaxProf Blog (AALS)
A look at why the spread of meeting-transcription bots is unsettling lawyers worried about what gets recorded, stored, and discoverable.
University of Michigan Law School
Law students demonstrate AI tools built to widen access to justice, a glimpse of how the next generation of lawyers is approaching the technology.
Mirage News
An Australian perspective arguing that human expertise grows more important, not less, as AI takes on routine legal work.
Global Legal Post
A major global firm moves a legal-AI platform into full deployment, a signal of how quickly large practices are operationalizing these tools.
Why we publish this
TRX serves the court community, and part of that service is helping you stay oriented as AI and access-to-justice questions reshape the record. We read widely, rank by relevance and source authority, and pass along what is worth your attention. This roundup is curated and published roughly every two weeks. If you have a story we should consider for the next edition, send it our way.