The legal system runs on the record. But since April 2023, 72% of unlimited civil, family law, and probate hearings in California have moved forward with no verbatim transcript because no court reporter was present. That’s more than 2 million proceedings.

The court reporter shortage driving that number is structural. Nearly half of active reporters are at or near retirement age, and the training pipeline isn't producing replacements fast enough to close the gap. The result is a problem that spans workforce, technology, and economic dimensions. And thanks to California's comprehensive data, the workforce dynamics leading to the shortage provide a reference point for the experience nationwide.

What's at Stake When the Record Is Missing

As of Q2 2025, that rate had worsened to 74%. And these aren't minor administrative matters. Abstract workforce statistics become real every time a custody decision is made, a conservatorship is ordered, or an estate is distributed, and no one transcribed what happened. If a party wants to appeal, challenge the judge's factual findings, or demonstrate that something went wrong, they need the record.

The California Supreme Court addressed this directly in Jameson v. Desta (2018), noting that the absence of a record will "frequently be fatal" to a litigant's ability to have an appeal decided on the merits.

The burden isn't distributed evenly. Court-appointed reporters are a resource, not a guarantee. Litigants who can afford to retain a private reporter can still make a record. Those who can't are left with nothing.

A Systemic Problem

California's data isn’t an indictment of any individual court or county. Rather, it’s a systemic signal about what happens when supply can't keep up with demand over time. The profession is experiencing simultaneous pressure from the top and the bottom: a workforce aging toward retirement, a training system incapable of quick gap filling, and demand that isn't waiting for either to stabilize.

California courts currently employ around 1,100 reporters but need over 450 more full-time equivalent positions just to meet existing caseload demand. That's a 42% gap between current capacity and what the caseload requires.

A fast recovery is unlikely. Nearly half of active licenses were issued more than 30 years ago. Meanwhile, the number of people entering the profession is dwindling. In FY 2024–25, only 227 new licenses were issued statewide. California's court reporting schools have declined from 17 to 8 since 2010. Fewer than 54% of exam candidates pass the skills portion of the licensure exam. The volume simply isn’t there.

The Market Response and Its Limits

Courts and the market have responded, but it hasn't been enough. Los Angeles County has offered signing bonuses up to $50,000, finder's fees of $25,000, and full tuition scholarships to attract reporters. Ninety-one percent or more of trial courts have engaged in active recruiting.The results have been modest. Over 2.5 years, the net gain across the entire state was 12.9 FTE reporters.

Private reporters fill gaps at significant cost—an average of $2,580 per day for deposition reporters, and $3,300 per day for trial reporters. California courts spent $25.2 million on transcripts in FY 2024–25 alone. That's an enormous investment in a partial solution that doesn't expand the workforce.

The Need for Structural Solutions

The issue runs so deep that true structural solutions are required, and California courts are spearheading the movement. Under AB 3013, thirteen California counties including Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara began remote court reporting pilot projects on July 1, 2025, equipping courtrooms with individual microphones and dedicated cameras to allow certified reporters to cover proceedings from off-site. The Legislature is already weighing an extension through 2028.

And in a case with potentially broader implications, the California Supreme Court took up Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (S288176), which asks whether the statutory prohibition on electronic recording of certain proceedings violates the California Constitution when no official reporter is available and a litigant cannot afford to hire one privately. The court issued an order to show cause and heard oral argument in June 2026. If the court holds that the Constitution requires an alternative when a reporter cannot be provided, it would effectively force the Legislature's hand on electronic recording as a fallback, not just a pilot.

Together, these developments signal that California is no longer treating the shortage as a staffing inconvenience. It is beginning to treat it as a due process problem.

***

Steno offerings for court reporters include a centralized Provider Dashboard for sharing documents, a Job Marketplace that provides reporters more control over their schedules, and on-demand technical training.

Learn more about how Steno works with court reporters.