Longtime family law attorney Alphonse Provinziano, on behalf of the Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA), is leading a subcommittee of lawyers which is advocating for the use of audio recordings in family courtrooms in light of an ongoing shortage of court reporters in Los Angeles County and elsewhere in California.

Court reporters are going away in family law courtrooms in Los Angeles beginning November 14 and have already disappeared in several of our state's most populous counties. This means civil matters in family courtrooms will require private court reporters, which could add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical contested divorce, leaving unrepresented litigants at a huge disadvantage and changing the way that lawyers operate in court. 

The BHBA has spearheaded proposed legislative change to the government code to allow this and we need your help in signing this petition as a family law attorney to let the legislature know this change is essential to protect access to justice. 

--

BEVERLY HILLS BAR ASSOCIATION BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Proposed Legislative Language re Amendment to Government Code § 69957 concerning Audio Recordings

On October 11, 2022, the Beverly Hills Board of Governors unanimously voted to endorse the following legislative change proposed by the Solutions for Family Law sub-committee. This committee was chaired by Alphonse F. Provinziano, and the members were also Kendra Thomas, Anthony Storm, Margo Bouchet and Malcolm McNeil. The purpose is to address the impending loss of court reporters in Family Law Courtrooms in Los Angeles County, as well as in several of the most populous counties in the state, affecting over 12 million people:

Proposed legislative fix:
It's a simple fix that the legislature has to do to equalize the playing field and make the court proceedings accessible to all in Family Law by changing Government Code section 69957 to allow audio recordings in cases brought under the family code, and all proceeding brought under Code of Civil Procedure 527.6, which includes Civil Harassment Restraining Orders, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1209 – 1222 which includes contempt actions which are actions brought to enforce court orders, often in family law proceedings.

Proposed amended statute (changes in bold):

Government Code 69957. (a) If an official reporter or an official reporter pro tempore is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court, subject to the availability of approved equipment and equipment monitors, the court may order that, in a limited civil case, a misdemeanor or infraction case, or all proceedings brought under the Family Code, the Code of Civil Procedure 527.6, and the Code of Civil Procedure sections 1209 – 1222, the action or proceeding be electronically recorded, including all the testimony, the objections made, the ruling of the court, the exceptions taken, all arraignments, pleas, and sentences of defendants in criminal cases, the arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and all statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge. A transcript derived from an electronic recording may be utilized whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. Transcripts derived from electronic recordings shall include a designation of “inaudible” or “unintelligible” for those portions of the recording that contain no audible sound or are not discernible. The electronic recording device and appurtenant equipment shall be of a type approved by the Judicial Council for courtroom use and shall only be purchased for use as provided by this section. A court shall not expend funds for or use electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or proceeding, including for purposes of judicial notetaking, or to make the official record of an action or proceeding in circumstances not authorized by this section.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a court may use electronic recording equipment for the internal personnel purpose of monitoring the performance of subordinate judicial officers, as defined in Section 71601 of the Government Code, hearing officers, and temporary judges while proceedings are conducted in the courtroom, if notice is provided to the subordinate judicial officer, hearing officer, or temporary judge, and to the litigants, that the proceeding may be recorded for that purpose. An electronic recording made for the purpose of monitoring that performance shall not be used for any other purpose and shall not be made publicly available. Any recording made pursuant to this subdivision shall be destroyed two years after the date of the proceeding unless a personnel matter is pending relating to performance of the subordinate judicial officer, hearing officer, or temporary judge.

(c) Prior to purchasing or leasing any electronic recording technology or equipment, a court shall obtain advance approval from the Judicial Council, which may grant that approval only if the use of the technology or equipment will be consistent with this section.

Pros:

1. The new law is an easy fix as it will allow audio recordings in family law proceedings, which already occurs in misdemeanor and infraction cases.

2. The proposed legislative change will also be helpful because it will allow people to get audio recordings of family law proceedings, which is one of the most important things possible in order to provide documented statements to litigants.

3. It levels the playing field so that all parties to an action will have the ability to obtain an audio recording which then can be used to generate a transcript, and there are already procedures established for how to do that based on misdemeanor and infraction cases.

4. The technology already exists and can be implemented with pre-existing technology that's available to the court. The fiscal impact would be to purchase additional equipment. This is not an issue of funding, as a $30 million funding amount was available for additional court reporters, and was unused

Cons:

1. The organized labor union such as the SEIU are heavily opposed to this because they believe that it will eliminate jobs; however, with the increasing shortage of court reporters, at this time is not something that realistically will impact jobs. The jobs will still exist in felony and juvenile cases where the court is directing their resources, as well as private court reporters will also have their jobs. The current law will not result in any court reporters losing their jobs. This is just a fix for cases where parties will not have the money to pay for a court reporter based on the current law.

2. Is there sufficient funding? Based on the $30 million grant that was given for court reporters, funding does seem to be available to the court system. It's simply a lack of court reporters being available.

3. The courts themselves may be reluctant to be audio recorded; however, I have seen in practice that the court controls what is being audio recorded just like they would tell a court reporter to go on and off the record. Also, many court systems use audio recordings in other jurisdictions, such as Federal Bankruptcy Court, and apparently the entire state of Kentucky uses audio recordings for almost the last thirty years in all judicial proceedings. If these courts can do it, so can California.