Existing law provides that, except as specified, the fee for original transcripts prepared by an official court reporter or by a court reporter pro tempore is $0.85 for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law provides that, except as specified, the fee for a first copy of a transcript by a person who does not simultaneously purchase the original transcript is $0.20 for each 100 words, and for each additional copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law authorizes a court reporter, in civil cases, to charge an additional 50% for special daily copy service.

This bill would increase the fee charged for original transcripts and copies purchased at the same time, and copies purchased thereafter without the original transcript, incrementally commencing January 1, 2017, except as specified. The bill would also provide that the fee for transcription is an additional 50% for special daily copy service. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, with regard to transcript fees, as specified.

Existing law provides that, except as specified, the fee for original transcripts prepared by an official court reporter or by a court reporter pro tempore is $0.85 for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law provides that, except as specified, the fee for a first copy of a transcript by a person who does not simultaneously purchase the original transcript is $0.20 for each 100 words, and for each additional copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law authorizes a court reporter, in civil cases, to charge an additional 50% for special daily copy service.

This bill would increase the fee charged for original transcripts and copies purchased at the same time, and copies purchased thereafter without the original transcript, incrementally commencing January 1, 2017. The bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2021, the fee for an original transcript is $1.13 for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time, $0.22 for each 100 words. The bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2021, the fee for a first copy of a transcript that is not simultaneously purchased with the original transcript is $0.29 for each 100 words, and for each additional copy purchased at the same time, $0.22 for each 100 words. 2017, except as specified. The bill would also provide that the fee for transcription is an additional 50% for special daily copy service. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, with regard to transcript fees, as specified.

Existing law provides that that, except as specified, the fee for original transcripts prepared by an official court reporter or by a court reporter pro tempore is $0.85 for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law provides that that, except as specified, the fee for a first copy of a transcript by a person who does not simultaneously purchase the original transcript is $0.20 for each 100 words, and for each additional copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law authorizes a court reporter, in civil cases, to charge an additional 50% for special daily copy service.

This bill would increase the fee charged for original transcripts and copies incrementally commencing January 1, 2017. The bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2021, the fee for an original transcript is $1.24 $1.13 for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time, $0.22 for each 100 words. The bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2021, the fee for a first copy of a transcript that is not simultaneously purchased with the original transcript is $0.29 for each 100 words, and for each additional copy purchased at the same time, $0.22 for each 100 words. The bill would also provide that the fee for transcription is an additional 50% for special daily copy service.

Existing law provides that the fee for original transcripts prepared by an official court reporter or by a court reporter pro tempore is $0.85 for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law provides that the fee for a first copy of a transcript by a person who does not simultaneously purchase the original transcript is $0.20 for each 100 words, and for each additional copy purchased at the same time, $0.15 for each 100 words. Existing law authorizes a court reporter, in civil cases, to charge an additional 50% for special daily copy service.

This bill would increase the fee charged for original transcripts and copies incrementally commencing January 1, 2017. The bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2019, 2021, the fee for an original transcript is $1.24 for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time, $0.22 for each 100 words. The bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2019, 2021, the fee for a first copy of a transcript that is not simultaneously purchased with the original transcript is $0.29 for each 100 words, and for each additional copy purchased at the same time, $0.22 for each 100 words. The bill would provide that on and after April 1, 2020, and on or before each April 1 thereafter, the fee charged for original transcripts and copies shall be increased proportionally by the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as specified, and would require the Administrative Office of the Courts to publish an updated transcript fee schedule. The bill would also provide that the fee for transcription is an additional 50% for special daily copy service.

Existing law provides for the certification and regulation of shorthand reporters by the Court Reporters Board of California in the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law requires disciplinary proceedings under these provisions to be conducted in accordance with existing administrative adjudication provisions.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to this requirement.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 2629

Author:(Roger Hernández)

As Enrolled Ver:September 2, 2016

2/3 vote

Original Committee Reference: JUD.

SUMMARY: Increases the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts by 33% and for copies by 45%, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the fee for transcription for the original printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed for each 100 words (also known as the "folio rate") will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.93 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85.)
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $1.03 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $1.13 per 100 words.
2. Provides that the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.16 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15).
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.18 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.20 per 100 words.
3. Provides that the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.21 per 100 words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.16 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.23 per 100 words, and $0.18 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.26 per 100 words, and $0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
4. Clarifies that the fee for special daily copy service transcription is an additional 50%.
5. Requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature, by January 1, 2021, on recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures with the intent not to reduce the rates of pay or overall compensation of court reporters or jeopardize collective bargaining agreements.
6. Makes legislative findings and declarations.

The Senate amendments reduce the transcript fee increase for copies and require the Judicial Council study.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies the following transcript-related fees:
   1. The fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for each 100 words.
   2. The fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per 100 words.
   3. The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding 1) above, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012 based on an estimate as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed.
3. Establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Fund) for the purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to otherwise afford those services. More specifically, requires funds generated by court reporter licensing fees, in excess of funds needed to support the Court Reporter Board's operating budget, to be used by the Board for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the Fund. Authorizes the Fund only until January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date that deletes or extends the sunset date.
4. Permits, until January 1, 2017, a person appearing pro se at any stage of the case to apply to receive assistance with transcription costs from the Fund, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and not to exceed $30,000 annually for all cases.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Trial court costs: Potentially significant increase in annual court costs (General Fund*) resulting from the transcript fee increases imposed incrementally over five years. Court expenditures on transcripts total about $20 million annually. Based on the proposed fee increases, costs to the courts statewide could potentially increase incrementally by up to $1.8 million to $6.6 million (General Fund*) over the five-year period, and annually thereafter, assuming a consistent level of transcription usage and adoption of the mandated rates statewide. However, staff notes the estimated statewide costs are projected to be lower to account for the proportion of costs attributable to local courts with pre-2012 established rates that may remain unchanged. At the time of this analysis, the data indicating the proportion of annual costs attributable to courts with grandfathered rates was unavailable.
2. Transcript Reimbursement Fund: Potential future increases in reimbursements paid out of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Special Fund**) for higher reimbursement costs for transcripts for low income litigants, to the extent the Court Reporters Board and its administration of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund are extended beyond the impending sunset date of January 1, 2017.

*Trial Court Trust Fund **Transcript Reimbursement Fund

COMMENTS: A court transcript is a verbatim record of what occurred at a court hearing. Without that official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. The fee charged by court reporters for original transcripts has not been increased since 1990. This bill seeks to increase the fee for original transcripts by approximately 33% and for copies by approximately 45%, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017.

The last increase in the transcript fee occurred through SB 2376 (Presley), Chapter 505, Statutes of 1990, which increased the transcription fee, effective 1991, for court reporters from $0.70 to $0.85 per 100 words for an original transcript, and from $0.10 to $0.15 per 100 words for each copy of a transcript ordered at the same time as the original. Since 1990, the Consumer Price Index, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by 81%, but the cost of transcriptions has not increased.

Access to a court transcript is an important component of access to justice. Without the official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. For example, when issuing a judgment in a contested family law matter, the judge often requires one of the parties to prepare a written judgment memorializing the orders of the court. Without a transcript, preparation of a judgment, and therefore enforcing the orders made by the judge, may be all but impossible. Similarly, if a litigant seeks to modify a judgment based on a change of circumstances, it is often necessary to understand, and communicate to the court, the circumstances the court initially took into account in making a custody or support order, for example. Absent a transcript, this too may be very difficult.

The Transcript Reimbursement Fund for represented and unrepresented indigent litigants. In order to defray the costs of court transcripts for indigent litigants, the Legislature created the Transcript Reimbursement Fund. The Fund was established by AB 1017 (Alatorre), Chapter 1350, Statutes of 1980, and is maintained by a percentage of the dues imposed on certified shorthand reporters. AB 1017 was sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and California Rural Legal Assistance who argued that "because indigent litigants are unable to pay for transcripts they are effectively denied appropriate legal remedies." The Fund is used to reimburse court reporters the cost of preparing official court and deposition transcripts for indigent litigants, as defined, served by a qualified legal services project, qualified support center or other qualified project, or a pro bono attorney. Because of concerns that the huge volume of unrepresented parties could overwhelm the Fund, it had historically excluded litigants representing themselves at any stage of the case. The Fund receives $300,000 each year from court reporter license fees.

Unfortunately, not all indigent litigants are able to secure counsel to represent them. In fact, most indigent litigants in areas such as family law are forced to represent themselves in court. In response to concerns that indigent, unrepresented litigants have no ability to access the Fund, SB 1181 (Cedillo), Chapter 518, Statutes of 2010, established a small sub-fund to help cover the costs of transcripts for indigent, unrepresented litigants. That sub-fund is limited to $30,000 annually, which is taken from the $300,000 in the Fund for represented litigants, and covers, at most, $1,500 per case. It appears that while the total Fund has not been fully expended in the last decade, the $30,000 sub-fund for unrepresented litigants is used up early every year, so that many unrepresented litigants are still unable to obtain assistance from the Fund.

Regardless of the effectiveness of both programs in meeting the needs of indigent litigants, both the Fund for indigent represented litigants and the sub-fund for unrepresented litigants was scheduled to sunset effective January 1, 2017. AB 2192 (Salas), Chapter 567, Statutes 2016, extends the sunset date for the $300,000 Transcript Reimbursement Fund until January 1, 2020 and increases the sub-fund available for unrepresented litigants to $75,000.

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

"This bill would increase the fee that court reporters can charge for a court proceeding transcript.

"This bill results in additional pressure to the General Fund by increasing costs to the judicial system. It covers spending that is more appropriately considered during the budget process."

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0005071

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2629

Author:(Roger Hernández)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: JUD.

SUMMARY: Increases the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts by 33% and for copies by 45%, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the fee for transcription for the original printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed for each 100 words (also known as the "folio rate") will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.93 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85.)
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $1.03 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $1.13 per 100 words.
2. Provides that the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.16 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15).
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.18 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.20 per 100 words.
3. Provides that the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.21 per 100 words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.16 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.23 per 100 words, and $0.18 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.26 per 100 words, and $0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
4. Clarifies that the fee for special daily copy service transcription is an additional 50%.
5. Requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature, by January 1, 2021, on recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures with the intent not to reduce the rates of pay or overall compensation of court reporters or jeopardize collective bargaining agreements.
6. Makes legislative findings and declarations.

The Senate amendments reduce the transcript fee increase for copies and require the Judicial Council study.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies the following transcript-related fees:
   1. The fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for each 100 words.
   2. The fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per 100 words.
   3. The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding 1) above, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012 based on an estimate as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed.
3. Establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Fund) for the purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to otherwise afford those services. More specifically, requires funds generated by court reporter licensing fees, in excess of funds needed to support the Court Reporter Board's operating budget, to be used by the Board for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the Fund. Authorizes the Fund only until January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date that deletes or extends the sunset date.
4. Permits, until January 1, 2017, a person appearing pro se at any stage of the case to apply to receive assistance with transcription costs from the Fund, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and not to exceed $30,000 annually for all cases.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Trial court costs: Potentially significant increase in annual court costs (General Fund*) resulting from the transcript fee increases imposed incrementally over five years. Court expenditures on transcripts total about $20 million annually. Based on the proposed fee increases, costs to the courts statewide could potentially increase incrementally by up to $1.8 million to $6.6 million (General Fund*) over the five-year period, and annually thereafter, assuming a consistent level of transcription usage and adoption of the mandated rates statewide. However, staff notes the estimated statewide costs are projected to be lower to account for the proportion of costs attributable to local courts with pre-2012 established rates that may remain unchanged. At the time of this analysis, the data indicating the proportion of annual costs attributable to courts with grandfathered rates was unavailable.
2. Transcript Reimbursement Fund: Potential future increases in reimbursements paid out of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Special Fund**) for higher reimbursement costs for transcripts for low income litigants, to the extent the Court Reporters Board and its administration of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund are extended beyond the impending sunset date of January 1, 2017.

*Trial Court Trust Fund **Transcript Reimbursement Fund

COMMENTS: A court transcript is a verbatim record of what occurred at a court hearing. Without that official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. The fee charged by court reporters for original transcripts has not been increased since 1990. This bill seeks to increase the fee for original transcripts by approximately 33% and for copies by approximately 45%, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017.

The last increase in the transcript fee occurred through SB 2376 (Presley), Chapter 505, Statutes of 1990, which increased the transcription fee, effective 1991, for court reporters from $0.70 to $0.85 per 100 words for an original transcript, and from $0.10 to $0.15 per 100 words for each copy of a transcript ordered at the same time as the original. Since 1990, the Consumer Price Index, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by 81%, but the cost of transcriptions has not increased.

Access to a court transcript is an important component of access to justice. Without the official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. For example, when issuing a judgment in a contested family law matter, the judge often requires one of the parties to prepare a written judgment memorializing the orders of the court. Without a transcript, preparation of a judgment, and therefore enforcing the orders made by the judge, may be all but impossible. Similarly, if a litigant seeks to modify a judgment based on a change of circumstances, it is often necessary to understand, and communicate to the court, the circumstances the court initially took into account in making a custody or support order, for example. Absent a transcript, this too may be very difficult.

The Transcript Reimbursement Fund for represented and unrepresented indigent litigants. In order to defray the costs of court transcripts for indigent litigants, the Legislature created the Transcript Reimbursement Fund. The Fund was established by AB 1017 (Alatorre), Chapter 1350, Statutes of 1980, and is maintained by a percentage of the dues imposed on certified shorthand reporters. AB 1017 was sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and California Rural Legal Assistance who argued that "because indigent litigants are unable to pay for transcripts they are effectively denied appropriate legal remedies." The Fund is used to reimburse court reporters the cost of preparing official court and deposition transcripts for indigent litigants, as defined, served by a qualified legal services project, qualified support center or other qualified project, or a pro bono attorney. Because of concerns that the huge volume of unrepresented parties could overwhelm the Fund, it had historically excluded litigants representing themselves at any stage of the case. The Fund receives $300,000 each year from court reporter license fees.

Unfortunately, not all indigent litigants are able to secure counsel to represent them. In fact, most indigent litigants in areas such as family law are forced to represent themselves in court. In response to concerns that indigent, unrepresented litigants have no ability to access the Fund, SB 1181 (Cedillo), Chapter 581, Statutes of 2010, established a small sub-fund to help cover the costs of transcripts for indigent, unrepresented litigants. That sub-fund is limited to $30,000 annually, which is taken from the $300,000 in the Fund for represented litigants, and covers, at most, $1,500 per case. It appears that while the total Fund has not been fully expended in the last decade, the $30,000 sub-fund for unrepresented litigants is used up early every year, so that many unrepresented litigants are still unable to obtain assistance from the Fund.

Regardless of the effectiveness of both programs in meeting the needs of indigent litigants, both the Fund for indigent represented litigants and the sub-fund for unrepresented litigants are scheduled to sunset effective January 1, 2017. In order to help provide access to justice for indigent litigants, the Transcript Reimbursement Fund for both represented and unrepresented litigants must be continued beyond this year. Moreover, given that raising the cost of a transcript by 33% for indigent litigants may result in even less access to transcripts than they currently have, it is important that the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, particularly the fund for unrepresented litigants which today is underfunded, be increased at the same rate that the transcript fees are being increased by this bill. This will help ensure that indigent litigants have at least the same access to justice as they have today. AB 2192 (Salas) of the current legislative session would extend the sunset date for the $300,000 Transcript Reimbursement Fund until January 1, 2020 and increase the sub-fund available for unrepresented litigants to $75,000.

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0004261

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2629

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 6/28/16

AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Anderson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-26, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Court Reporters Association

DIGEST: This bill incrementally increases the fees that court reporters can charge for transcripts, and copies thereof, over the next five years, as specified. This bill also requires the Judicial Council to report, as specified, recommendations to the Legislature to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures in California.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) with, among other things, the authority and responsibility to determine the qualifications of persons applying for certification as a shorthand reporter; make rules for the examination of applicants and the issuing of certificates of qualification in professional shorthand reporting; investigate the actions of any licensee, upon receipt of a verified complaint in writing from any person, for alleged acts or omissions constituting grounds for disciplinary action, as specified; and charge and collect authorized fees.
2. Establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) for the purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to otherwise afford those services. More specifically, existing law requires funds generated by court reporter licensing fees, in excess of funds needed to support the CRB’s operating budget, to be used by the CRB for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the TRF. The TRF will sunset on January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date to delete or extend the sunset date.
3. Authorizes a person appearing pro se at any stage of the case to apply to receive assistance with transcription costs from the TRF, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and not to exceed $30,000 annually for all cases. This provision will sunset on January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date to delete or extend the sunset date.
4. Specifies the following transcript-related fees:

• The fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for each 100 words (also known as the “folio rate”);
• The fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per 100 words; and
• The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.

1. Provides that, notwithstanding the above, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012, based on an estimate as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed.

This bill:

1. Provides, instead, that transcription fee for the original printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed for each 100 words, will be charged as follows:

• From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.93 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85);
• From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $1.03 per 100 words; and
• Beginning January 1, 2021: $1.13 per 100 words.

1. Provides that the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original will be charged as follows:

• From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.16 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15);
• From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.18 per 100 words; and
• Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.20 per 100 words.

1. Provides that the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original will be charged as follows:

• From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.21 per 100 words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.16 for each additional copy purchased at the same time;
• From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.23 per 100 words, and $0.18 for each additional copy purchased at the same time; and
• Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.26 per 100 words, and $0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.

1. Provides that the fee for transcription is an additional 50 percent for special daily copy service, whereas existing law provides that: for transcription, in civil cases, the court reporter may charge an additional 50 percent for special daily copy service.
2. Requires, on or before January 1, 2021, the Judicial Council report to the Legislature recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures in California, as specified. The intent of the report shall not be to reduce the rate of pay or overall compensation to reporters or jeopardize collective bargaining agreements and the Council shall work in collaboration with specified stakeholder groups for these purposes.
3. Includes specified findings and declarations.

Background

CRB is charged with certifying and regulating shorthand reporters, who perform a vital function for the courts and litigants in providing official, verbatim records of a variety of proceedings. (See Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8017.) The importance of this transcription function, by such licensed individuals, is reflected in California law, which requires that an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore of the superior court take down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings of the court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences, arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other judicial officer, in specified cases. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 269.) Existing law also provides that the report of the official reporter, or the official reporter pro tempore, of any court, duly appointed and sworn, when transcribed and certified as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie evidence of the testimony and proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 273(a).)

Since 1981, CRB has been charged with administering the TRF, fully supported by an augmentation in the licensing fees imposed upon certified shorthand reporters. The purpose of the TRF is to ensure that low-income litigants in civil cases are able to afford deposition and court transcripts by reimbursing eligible applicants or certified shorthand reporters for the cost of preparing an original transcript and/or copy of a California state court or deposition proceeding. Attorneys for indigent litigants apply to the TRF for payments to be made to court reporters for their work in preparing court and deposition transcripts in their cases. With TRF in existence, low-income individuals are afforded access to services that might otherwise be unavailable. When established, the program was scheduled for sunset on June 30, 1986. Since then the sunset has been extended several times, most recently to January 1, 2017. Notably, the TRF consists of a Pro Bono program and a Pro Per Program, both of which ensure indigent litigants have access to court reporting transcripts for civil cases. In January 1, 2011, recognizing that the TRF has historically been underutilized by indigent litigants represented by pro bono attorneys or qualified non-profit entities, the Pro Per Program was implemented as a pilot project in order to maximize the benefits of the TRF and expand access to justice to those most in need. The pilot project ran through January 1, 2013, and was capped at $30,000 per calendar year, with a $1,500 cap per case. This project is also scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2017, unless legislation extends that date. Under the TRF programs, CRB has paid more than $8.5 million to licensed reporters. (Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development and Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, Background Paper for the Court Reporters Board (Mar. 9, 2016) <http://www.courtreportersboard.ca.gov/about-us/sunset_2016_background.pdf p. 2 [as of Jun. 15, 2016].)

Under California law, the fees that a court reporter may charge in connection with transcripts are set by statute. Those fees have not been raised since they were last increased to their current rates in 1990 by SB 2376 (Presley, Chapter 505, Statutes of 1990). There was an attempt to do so in 2006 by AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006), which would have not only raised the fee, but it would have changed it from a fee per 100 words (known as a folio rate) to a per page rate. Under that proposed fee structure, the original transcript at $3.57 per page, with the cost of additional copies set at $0.63 per page. That bill died without a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Most recently, AB 582 (Evans, 2007) would have also changed the transcript fee from a folio rate to a per page rate. AB 582 proposed to set the fee for the original printed court transcript to $2.93 per page; the fee for each copy purchased at the same time as the original transcript by a court, party, or other person $0.52 per page; the fee for a first copy of the transcript to a court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original $0.69 per page; and the fee for each additional copy purchased at the same time $0.52 per page. That bill would have also provided that from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, inclusive, and on and after July 1, 2011, these costs shall increase in an unspecified amount. On or after June 30, 2011, and every June 30 thereafter, the bill would have required that these costs to be increased according to the cumulative increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as specified. Ultimately, AB 582 was gutted and amended into another topic and died in the Senate Judiciary Committee without a hearing.

This bill seeks to increase the transcript fees that may be charged by court reporters for the first time since legislation was over 25 years ago, setting the current rates.

Comments

As stated by the author:

California has not adjusted the court transcript fee collected by court reporters since 1990. Court reporters employed by the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation structure in which the base salary of a court reporter is supplemented by the income from preparing required transcripts and providing other required transcription services. The dual compensation structure protects the state from bearing the full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription services. This avoids the resulting consequences of overtime liability related to these services.

In order to bring parity and fair compensation for court reporters, this bill advances a modest transcript fee adjustment. This will ensure the system of dual compensation is up to date in providing sufficient payment for transcription services.

The following is a chart of the proposed fee adjustment:

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Trial court costs: Potentially significant increase in annual court costs (General Fund*) resulting from the transcript fee increases imposed incrementally over five years. Court expenditures on transcripts total about $20 million annually. Based on the proposed fee increases, costs to the courts statewide could potentially increase incrementally by up to $1.8 million to $6.6 million (General Fund*) over the five-year period, and annually thereafter, assuming a consistent level of transcription usage and adoption of the mandated rates statewide. However, Senate Appropriations staff notes the estimated statewide costs are projected to be lower to account for the proportion of costs attributable to local courts with pre-2012 established rates that may remain unchanged. At the time of this analysis, the data indicating the proportion of annual costs attributable to courts with grandfathered rates was unavailable.
• Transcript Reimbursement Fund: Potential future increases in reimbursements paid out of the TRF (Special Fund**) for higher reimbursement costs for transcripts for low income litigants, to the extent the CRB and its administration of the TRF are extended beyond the impending sunset date of January 1, 2017.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Transcript Reimbursement Fund

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

California Court Reporters Association (source)

Alameda County Official Court Reporters Association

Butte County Superior Court Reporters

Contra Costa Superior Court Reporters

Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association

Marin County Superior Court Reporters

Northern California Court Reporters Association

Orange County Superior Court Reporters Association

Sacramento Official Court Reporters Association

San Diego Superior Court Reporters Association

Service Employees International Union California

Tulare County Superior Court Reporters

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)

Judicial Council

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsor, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), writes that court reporter transcripts “are vital to the delivery of justice in California. Parties regularly rely on court records to prepare for future hearings, explore potential legal theories, as well as, ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. In essence, an official transcript is used both to enable parties to fully exercise their legal rights and to provide some level of accountability of our judicial process.” CCRA explains that court reporters spend thousands of dollars to purchase their own equipment and frequently pay out of pocket for continuing education courses as well as other ongoing costs. Their profession is “subject to a dual compensation structure. The hours we work at the courthouse are paid for through a traditional employee wage or salary model. However, whenever an official transcript must be produced, we are required to spend evenings and weekends doing the work. This is uncompensated through salary or wages.” Instead, their work is compensated by the statutory transcript fee, which has not “been updated since 1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation. AB 2629 will address this outdated fix rate fee by implementing a modest increase that still lags behind 100 [percent] of inflation. However, this update will help ensure that court reporters are reasonably compensated.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition, the Judicial Council writes, in part:

As originally drafted, AB 2629 would have created statewide consistency in the cost of court reporters’ transcripts. Each county would have been subject to the same increase in costs, allowing the branch as a whole to effectively attempt to predict the costs, and consequently, to plan and budget for them. The reintroduction of paragraph (c) [of existing law] in each subsequent version of Government Code section 69950 eliminates this consistency and reinstates the current, county-by-county negotiated transcript rates that have hampered statewide budgeting efforts. As the judicial branch has moved to a statewide funding model, this anachronistic hodgepodge of transcript rates has hampered attempts to effectively and consistently predict budget outlays and requirements. Should AB 2629 pass and become law, thereby increasing the transcript fees statewide, it is a perfect opportunity to allow for the consistent budgetary predictability that statewide funding requires.

Because the Judicial Council is concerned with the fiscal impact the bill will have on the branch [ . . . ] the council also opposes AB 2629 unless funding for the increased cost for transcripts is provided. As an alternative to an appropriation in the bill itself, the council could withdraw its opposition if the implementation of the transcript fee increases are made contingent upon an appropriation in the annual budget act. [ . . . ]

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-26, 6/2/16

AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Daly, Beth Gaines

Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/15/16 20:22:27

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 2629 (Roger Hernández) - Court reporters

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 11, 2016

Bill Summary:

AB 2629 would increase the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts, and copies thereof, incrementally over the next five years, as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures in California, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Trial court costs: Potentially significant increase in annual court costs (General Fund*) resulting from the transcript fee increases imposed incrementally over five years. Court expenditures on transcripts total about $20 million annually. Based on the proposed fee increases, costs to the courts statewide could potentially increase incrementally by up to $1.8 million to $6.6 million (General Fund*) over the five-year period, and annually thereafter, assuming a consistent level of transcription usage and adoption of the mandated rates statewide. However, staff notes the estimated statewide costs are projected to be lower to account for the proportion of costs attributable to local courts with pre-2012 established rates that may remain unchanged. At the time of this analysis, the data indicating the proportion of annual costs attributable to courts with grandfathered rates was unavailable.
• Transcript Reimbursement Fund: Potential future increases in reimbursements paid out of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Special Fund**) for higher reimbursement costs for transcripts for low income litigants, to the extent the Court Reporters Board and its administration of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund are extended beyond the impending sunset date of January 1, 2017.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Transcript Reimbursement Fund

Author Amendments:

• Reduce the amount of the fee increases for copies of original transcripts.
• Require the Judicial Council to report on or before January 1, 2021, to the Legislature recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures in California, as specified.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 2629 (Roger Hernández) - Court reporters

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 2629 would increase the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts, and copies thereof, incrementally over the next five years, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Trial court costs: Potentially significant increase in annual court costs (General Fund*) resulting from the transcript fee increases imposed incrementally over five years. Court expenditures on transcripts total about $20 million annually. Based on the proposed fee increases, costs to the courts statewide could potentially increase incrementally by up to $2.4 million to $7.7 million (General Fund*) over the five-year period, and annually thereafter, assuming a consistent level of transcription usage and adoption of the mandated rates statewide. However, staff notes the estimated statewide costs are projected to be lower to account for the proportion of costs attributable to local courts with pre-2012 established rates that may remain unchanged. At the time of this analysis, the data indicating the proportion of annual costs attributable to courts with grandfathered rates was unavailable.
• Transcript Reimbursement Fund: Potential future increases in reimbursements paid out of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Special Fund**) for higher reimbursement costs for transcripts for low income litigants, to the extent the Court Reporters Board and its administration of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund are extended beyond the impending sunset date of January 1, 2017.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Transcript Reimbursement Fund

Background:

Existing law establishes the Court Reporters Board (CRB) with the authority and responsibility to determine the qualifications of persons applying for certification as a shorthand reporter; to make rules for the examination of applicants and the issuing of certificates of qualification in professional shorthand reporting; to investigate the actions of any licensee, upon receipt of a verified complaint in writing from any person, for alleged acts or omissions constituting grounds for disciplinary action, as specified; and to charge and collect authorized fees. (Business & Professions Code (BPC) §§ 8000 et seq., 8031.)

Under California law, the fees that a court reporter may charge in connection with transcripts are set by statute. Those fees have not been raised since they were last increased to their current rates in 1990 by SB 2376 (Presley) Chapter 505/1990.Under existing law, transcript-related fees are prescribed as follows:

• The fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for each 100 words (also known as the “folio rate”);
• The fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per 100 words;
• The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time. (Government Code § 69950(a).)

Under existing law, notwithstanding the above, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012, based on an estimate as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed. (Government Code § 69950(b).)

Existing law requires, until January 1, 2017, certain fees and revenues collected by the Court Reporters Board from licensees to be deposited into the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, to be available to provide reimbursement for the cost of providing shorthand reporting services to low-income litigants in civil cases. Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2017, low-income persons appearing pro se to apply for funds from the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, subject to specified requirements and limitations, including that total disbursements are prohibited from exceeding $30,000 annually and $1,500 per case. Existing law requires the board, until January 1, 2017, to publicize the availability of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund to prospective applicants. Existing law requires the unencumbered funds remaining in the Transcript Reimbursement Fund as of January 1, 2017, to be transferred to the Court Reporters’ Fund. (BPC § 8030.5.)

This bill seeks to increase the transcript fees that may be charged by court reporters for the first time since legislation was enacted over 25 years ago, setting the current rates.

Proposed Law:

This bill would increase the fees charged for original transcriptions and copies, as follows:

This bill would retain the provision in existing law that provides that if a trial court had established transcription fees that were in effect on January 1, 2012, based on an estimate or assumption as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed.

This bill would specify the fee for transcription is an additional 50 percent for special daily copy service in civil and criminal cases. (Existing law only authorizes the reporter to charge an additional 50 percent for special daily copy service in civil cases.)

This bill includes the following uncodified legislative findings and declarations:

• Official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation structure in which the base salary of the court reporter is supplemented by income from preparing required transcripts and providing other required transcription services;
• The dual compensation structure protects the state from bearing the full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription services and avoids the resulting consequences of overtime liability related to these services;
• The fees for original transcripts prepared by official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore have not been adjusted in 26 years, and fees for copies purchased at the same time as the original transcript have only increased once in 103 years; and
• In order to ensure full and fair compensation of official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the court, and in order to attract and retain official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the courts that have sufficient skills and competence to serve the needs of the justice system, it is imperative that the system of dual compensation provide sufficient payment for transcription services.

Related Legislation: AB 2192 (Salas) 2016 would extend the sunset date on the Court Reporters Board from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2020. AB 2192 would additionally increase the reimbursement amount payable from the Transcript Reimbursement Fund from $30,000 to $75,000 annually. AB 2192 is scheduled to be heard today by this Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 582 (Evans) 2007 would have increased the transcription fees paid to court-employed reporters by unspecified amounts and expanded eligibility for reimbursement from the Transcription Reimbursement Fund (TRF). AB 582 was gut and amended to address a different subject matter, and was subsequently referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it was not set for hearing.

AB 2305 (Klehs) 2006 would have increased transcription fees paid to court-employed reporters in civil matters. AB 2305 would have authorized an additional 50 percent fee for special daily copy service for all matters. AB 2305 was not heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Staff Comments:

By incrementally raising the fees charged for original transcriptions and copies over the next five years, this bill could result in a potentially significant increase in annual court costs. Court expenditures on transcripts are projected at about $20 million annually. Based on the proposed fee increases, costs to the courts statewide could potentially increase incrementally by up to $2.4 million to $7.7 million (General Fund*) over the five-year period, assuming the volume of transcription usage remains consistent and that the fee increases are adopted statewide.

However, under existing law, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012, those transcription fees are required be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts cannot be unilaterally changed. Thus, the estimated statewide costs are projected to be lower than the figures noted above to account for the proportion of annual costs attributable to local trial courts with pre-2012 established rates, as the costs to those courts will be unaffected by the rate increases proposed in this measure. At the time of this analysis, the proportion of statewide costs attributable to courts with grandfathered rates was unavailable.

Raising court reporter fees for transcription services could additionally have the effect of increasing future reimbursements paid out of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) due to higher reimbursement costs for transcripts. Although the Court Reporters Board (CRB) and its administration of the TRF are scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2017, pending legislation to extend the sunset of the CRB and the TRF to January 1, 2020, is pending in the Legislature via AB 2192 (Salas). AB 2192 would additionally increase the maximum disbursement amount from the TRF from $30,000 to $75,000 annually. Although the potential costs to extend the sunset on the CRB and TRF cannot be attributable to this measure, by increasing the level of reimbursements potentially claimed against the TRF due to higher court reporter fees, this bill could result in additional payments out of the TRF should it be extended and its disbursement maximum increased.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015-2016 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2629 (Author:Roger Hernández)

Version: May 31, 2016

Hearing Date: June 28, 2016

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: RD

SUBJECT

Court reporters

DESCRIPTION

This bill would incrementally increase the fees that court reporters can charge for transcripts, and copies thereof, over the next five years, as specified.

BACKGROUND

The Court Reporters Board of California is charged with certifying and regulating shorthand reporters, who perform a vital function for the courts and litigants in providing official, verbatim records of a variety of proceedings. (See Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8017.) The importance of this transcription function, by such licensed individuals, is reflected in California law, which requires that an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore of the superior court take down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings of the court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences, arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other judicial officer, in specified cases. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 269.) Existing law also provides that the report of the official reporter, or the official reporter pro tempore, of any court, duly appointed and sworn, when transcribed and certified as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie evidence of the testimony and proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 273(a).)

Since 1981, the board has been charged with administering the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF), fully supported by an augmentation in the licensing fees imposed upon certified shorthand reporters. The purpose of the TRF is to ensure that low-income litigants in civil cases are able to afford deposition and court transcripts by reimbursing eligible applicants or certified shorthand reporters for the cost of preparing an original transcript and/or copy of a California state court or deposition proceeding. Attorneys for indigent litigants apply to the Fund for payments to be made to court reporters for their work in preparing court and deposition transcripts in their cases. With this Fund in existence, low-income individuals are afforded access to services that might otherwise be unavailable. When established, the program was scheduled for sunset on June 30, 1986. Since then the sunset has been extended several times, most recently to January 1, 2017. Notably, the TRF consists of a Pro Bono program and a Pro Per Program, both of which ensure indigent litigants have access to court reporting transcripts for civil cases. In January 1, 2011, recognizing that the TRF has historically been underutilized by indigent litigants represented by pro bono attorneys or qualified non-profit entities, the Pro Per Program was implemented as a pilot project in order to maximize the benefits of the TRF and expand access to justice to those most in need. The pilot project ran through January 1, 2013, and was capped at $30,000 per calendar year, with a $1,500 cap per case. This project is also scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2017, unless legislation extends that date. Under the TRF programs, the Board has paid more than $8.5 million to licensed reporters. (See Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development and Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, Background Paper for the Court Reporters Board (Mar. 9, 2016) <http://www.courtreportersboard.ca.gov/about-us/sunset_2016_background.pdf> p. 2 [as of Jun. 15, 2016].)

Under California law, the fees that a court reporter may charge in connection with transcripts are set by statute. Those fees have not been raised since they were last increased to their current rates in 1990 by SB 2376 (Presley, Ch. 505, Stats 1990). There was an attempt to do so in 2006 by AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006), which would have not only raised the fee, but it would have changed it from a fee per 100 words (known as a folio rate) to a per page rate. Under that proposed fee structure, the original transcript at $3.57 per page, with the cost of additional copies set at $0.63 per page. That bill died without a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Most recently, AB 582 (Evans, 2007) would have also changed the transcript fee from a folio rate to a per page rate. AB 582 proposed to set the fee for the original printed court transcript to $2.93 per page; the fee for each copy purchased at the same time as the original transcript by a court, party, or other person $0.52 per page; the fee for a first copy of the transcript to a court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original $0.69 per page; and the fee for each additional copy purchased at the same time $0.52 per page. That bill would have also provided that from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, inclusive, and on and after July 1, 2011, these costs shall increase in an unspecified amount. On or after June 30, 2011, and every June 30 thereafter, the bill would have required that these costs to be increased according to the cumulative increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as specified. Ultimately, AB 582 was gutted and amended into another topic and died in this Committee without a hearing.

AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006), would have changed the transcript fee from a folio rate to a per page rate and set the fee for the original transcript at $3.57 per page, with the cost of additional copies set at $0.63 per page. That bill died without a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

This bill seeks to increase the transcript fees that may be charged by court reporters for the first time since legislation was over 25 years ago, setting the current rates.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law establishes the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) with, among other things, the authority and responsibility to determine the qualifications of persons applying for certification as a shorthand reporter; make rules for the examination of applicants and the issuing of certificates of qualification in professional shorthand reporting; investigate the actions of any licensee, upon receipt of a verified complaint in writing from any person, for alleged acts or omissions constituting grounds for disciplinary action, as specified; and charge and collect authorized fees. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8000 et seq.; see Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 8007(a), (c); 8008(c); 8000(f); 8031.)

Existing law establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) for the purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to otherwise afford those services. More specifically, existing law requires funds generated by court reporter licensing fees, in excess of funds needed to support the CRB’s operating budget, to be used by the CRB for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the TRF. The TRF will sunset on January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date to delete or extend the sunset date. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8030.2.)

Existing law authorizes a person appearing pro se at any stage of the case to apply to receive assistance with transcription costs from the Fund, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and not to exceed $30,000 annually for all cases. This provision will sunset on January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date to delete or extend the sunset date. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8030.5.)

Existing law specifies the following transcript-related fees:

• the fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for each 100 words (also known as the “folio rate”);
• the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per 100 words; and
• the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time. (Gov. Code Sec. 69950(a).)

Existing law provides that, notwithstanding the above, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012, based on an estimate as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed. (Gov. Code Sec. 69950(b).)

This bill would, instead, provide that the fee for transcription for the original printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed for each 100 words will be charged as follows:

• from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.93 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85);
• from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $1.03 per 100 words; and
• beginning January 1, 2021: $1.13 per 100 words.

This bill would provide that the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original will be charged as follows:

• from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.17 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15);
• from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.20 per 100 words; and
• beginning January 1, 2021: $0.22 per 100 words.

This bill would provide that the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original will be charged as follows:

• from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.23 per 100 words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.17 for each additional copy purchased at the same time;
• from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.26 per 100 words, and $0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the same time; and
• beginning January 1, 2021: $0.29 per 100 words, and $0.22 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.

This bill would provide that the fee for transcription is an additional 50 percent for special daily copy service, whereas existing law provides that: for transcription, in civil cases, the court reporter may charge an additional 50 percent for special daily copy service.

This bill would include specified findings and declarations:

• official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation structure in which the base salary of the court reporter is supplemented by income from preparing required transcripts and providing other required transcription services;
• the dual compensation structure protects the state from bearing the full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription services and avoids the resulting consequences of overtime liability related to these services;
• the fees for original transcripts prepared by official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore have not been adjusted in 26 years, and fees for copies purchased at the same time as the original transcript have only increased once in 103 years; and
• in order to ensure full and fair compensation of official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the court, and in order to attract and retain official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the courts that have sufficient skills and competence to serve the needs of the justice system, it is imperative that the system of dual compensation provide sufficient payment for transcription services.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

California has not adjusted the court transcript fee collected by court reporters since 1990. Court reporters employed by the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation structure in which the base salary of a court reporter is supplemented by the income from preparing required transcripts and providing other required transcription services. The dual compensation structure protects the state from bearing the full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription services. This avoids the resulting consequences of overtime liability related to these services.

In order to bring parity and fair compensation for court reporters, this bill advances a modest transcript fee adjustment. This will ensure the system of dual compensation is up to date in providing sufficient payment for transcription services.

The author provides a chart of the proposed fee adjustment:

2. Proposed fee adjustment does not seem unreasonable

This bill proposes to adjust the schedule of fees for transcripts for the first time in 25 years. The current transcript fee was set in 1991, when it was increased $0.10 (from $0.70 to $0.85 per 100 words) for the first copy, and $0.05 (from $0.10 to $0.15 per 100 words) for each additional copy ordered at the same time as the original. (SB 2376 (Presley, Ch. 505, Stats. 1990.) Obviously, costs have only increased since then, and fees should arguably be adjusted accordingly.

This bill proposes a new schedule whereby the fee for the original transcript per 100 words would be raised incrementally, no more than $0.10 in any two year period, as follows:

• A total of $0.08 (from $0.85 to $0.93) for 2017-18;
• An additional $0.10 (from $0.93 to $1.03) for 2019-20; and
• An additional $0.10 (from $1.03 to $1.13) for January 1, 2021 and thereafter.

During those same time periods, the fee per 100 words will be raised for each copy purchased at the same time as the original transcript as follows: $0.02 (from $0.15 currently, to $0.17) for 2019-20; $0.03 ($0.17 to $0.20) in 2017-18; and an additional $0.02 to $0.22 from January 1, 2021 and on.

The bill similarly proposes to incrementally increase (between $0.02 and $0.03 each time), over five years, the fees for the first copy purchased by any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original, and for each additional copy, purchased at the same time as that first copy, as follows:

• in 2017-18: the fee for a first copy purchased without the original transcript will be raised from $0.20 to $0.23 for each 100 words, and the fee for any additional copies purchased at the same time will be raised from $0.15, currently, to $0.17 per 100 words;
• in 2019-20: the fee for a first copy purchased without the original transcript will be raised to $0.26 per 100 words, and the fee for any additional copies purchased at the same time will be raised to $0.20 per 100 words; and
• from January 1, 2021 and thereafter: the fee for the first copy purchased without the original transcript will be raised to $0.29 per 100 words, while additional copies purchased at the same time will be raised to $0.22 per 100 words.

Staff notes that, looking simply at the base fee per 100 words for the original transcript, that fee of $0.85, as set in 1991, holds the same buying power as $1.49 in 2016, if adjusted for inflation. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator <http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=.85&year1=1991&year2=2016> [as of Jun. 15, 2016].) This bill, however, suggests a reasonable $0.08 increase for the years 2017-18 after more than 25 years. The last time these fees were increased, they were raised $0.05 from the prior rate of $0.80, which had been set in 1986. (See Sen. Judiciary Com. analysis of SB 2376 (1989-1990 Reg. Session) Apr. 3, 1990, p. 3.)

The sponsor, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), writes that court reporter transcripts “are vital to the delivery of justice in California. Parties regularly rely on court records to prepare for future hearings, explore potential legal theories, as well as, ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. In essence, an official transcript is used both to enable parties to fully exercise their legal rights and to provide some level of accountability of our judicial process.” CCRA explains that court reporters spend thousands of dollars to purchase their own equipment and frequently pay out of pocket for continuing education courses as well as other ongoing costs. Their profession is “subject to a dual compensation structure. The hours we work at the courthouse are paid for through a traditional employee wage or salary model. However, whenever an official transcript must be produced, we are required to spend evenings and weekends doing the work. This is uncompensated through salary or wages.” Instead, their work is compensated by the statutory transcript fee, which has not “been updated since 1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation. AB 2629 will address this outdated fix rate fee by implementing a modest increase that still lags behind 100 [percent] of inflation. However, this update will help ensure that court reporters are reasonably compensated.”

3. Oppose unless amended and funded

In opposition, the Judicial Council writes, in part:

As originally drafted, AB 2629 would have created statewide consistency in the cost of court reporters’ transcripts. Each county would have been subject to the same increase in costs, allowing the branch as a whole to effectively attempt to predict the costs, and consequently, to plan and budget for them. The reintroduction of paragraph (c) [of existing law] in each subsequent version of Government Code section 69950 eliminates this consistency and reinstates the current, county-by-county negotiated transcript rates that have hampered statewide budgeting efforts. As the judicial branch has moved to a statewide funding model, this anachronistic hodgepodge of transcript rates has hampered attempts to effectively and consistently predict budget outlays and requirements. Should AB 2629 pass and become law, thereby increasing the transcript fees statewide, it is a perfect opportunity to allow for the consistent budgetary predictability that statewide funding requires.

Because the Judicial Council is concerned with the fiscal impact the bill will have on the branch [ . . . ] the council also opposes AB 2629 unless funding for the increased cost for transcripts is provided. As an alternative to an appropriation in the bill itself, the council could withdraw its opposition if the implementation of the transcript fee increases are made contingent upon an appropriation in the annual budget act. [ . . . ]

Support: Alameda County Official Court Reporters Association; Butte County Superior Court Reporters; Contra Costa Superior Court Reporters; Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association; Marin County Superior Court Reporters; Northern California Court Reporters Association; Orange County Superior Court Reporters Association; Sacramento Official Court Reporters Association; San Diego Superior Court Reporters Association; Service Employees International Union California; Tulare County Superior Court Reporters

Opposition: Judicial Council

HISTORY

Source: California Court Reporters Association

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

AB 582 (Evans, 2007) See Background. Like this bill, AB 582 would have further provided that the fee for transcription is an additional 50 percent for the special daily copy service.

AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006) See Background.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 52, Noes 26)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 2)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 1)

**************

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2629

Author:(Roger Hernández)

As Amended Ver:May 31, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Increases the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts by 33% and for copies by 45%, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the fee for transcription for the original printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed for each 100 words (also known as the "folio rate") will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.93 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85.)
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $1.03 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $1.13 per 100 words.
2. Provides that the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.17 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15).
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.20 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.22 per 100 words.
3. Provides that the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.23 per 100 words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.17 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.26 per 100 words, and $0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.29 per 100 words, and $0.22 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
4. Clarifies that the fee for special daily copy service transcription is an additional 50%.
5. Makes legislative findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies the following transcript-related fees:
   1. The fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for each 100 words.
   2. The fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per 100 words.
   3. The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding 1) above, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012 based on an estimate as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed.
3. Establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Fund) for the purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to otherwise afford those services. More specifically, requires funds generated by court reporter licensing fees, in excess of funds needed to support the Court Reporter Board's operating budget, to be used by the Board for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the Fund. Authorizes the Fund only until January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date that deletes or extends the sunset date.
4. Permits, until January 1, 2017, a person appearing pro se at any stage of the case to apply to receive assistance with transcription costs from the Fund, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and not to exceed $30,000 annually for all cases.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, court expenditures on transcripts averaged $20.5 million over the last three full fiscal years. Based on this amount and the incremental increases scheduled in the bill, General Fund cost increases to the court would be $1 million in 2016-17, $900,000 in 2017-18, and $1.2 million in each of the following four fiscal years. The total increase by 2021-22 would thus be about $6.7 million.

COMMENTS: A court transcript is a verbatim record of what occurred at a court hearing. Without that official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. The fee charged by court reporters for original transcripts has not been increased since 1990. This bill seeks to increase the fee for original transcripts by approximately 33% and for copies by approximately 45%, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017.

The last increase in the transcript fee occurred through SB 2376 (Presley), Chapter 505, Statutes of 1990, which increased the transcription fee, effective 1991, for court reporters from $0.70 to $0.85 per 100 words for an original transcript, and from $0.10 to $0.15 per 100 words for each copy of a transcript ordered at the same time as the original. Since 1990, the Consumer Price Index, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by 81%, but the cost of transcriptions has not increased.

Access to a court transcript is an important component of access to justice. Without the official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. For example, when issuing a judgment in a contested family law matter, the judge often requires one of the parties to prepare a written judgment memorializing the orders of the court. Without a transcript, preparation of a judgment, and therefore enforcing the orders made by the judge, may be all but impossible. Similarly, if a litigant seeks to modify a judgment based on a change of circumstances, it is often necessary to understand, and communicate to the court, the circumstances the court initially took into account in making a custody or support order, for example. Absent a transcript, this too may be very difficult.

The Transcript Reimbursement Fund for represented and unrepresented indigent litigants. In order to defray the costs of court transcripts for indigent litigants, the Legislature created the Transcript Reimbursement Fund. The Fund was established by AB 1017 (Alatorre), Chapter 1350, Statutes of 1980, and is maintained by a percentage of the dues imposed on certified shorthand reporters. AB 1017 was sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and California Rural Legal Assistance who argued that "because indigent litigants are unable to pay for transcripts they are effectively denied appropriate legal remedies." The Fund is used to reimburse court reporters the cost of preparing official court and deposition transcripts for indigent litigants, as defined, served by a qualified legal services project, qualified support center or other qualified project, or a pro bono attorney. Because of concerns that the huge volume of unrepresented parties could overwhelm the Fund, it had historically excluded litigants representing themselves at any stage of the case. The Fund receives $300,000 each year from court reporter license fees.

Unfortunately, not all indigent litigants are able to secure counsel to represent them. In fact, most indigent litigants in areas such as family law are forced to represent themselves in court. In response to concerns that indigent, unrepresented litigants have no ability to access the Fund, SB 1181 (Cedillo), Chapter 581, Statutes of 2010, established a small sub-fund to help cover the costs of transcripts for indigent, unrepresented litigants. That sub-fund is limited to $30,000 annually, which is taken from the $300,000 in the Fund for represented litigants, and covers, at most, $1,500 per case. It appears that while the total Fund has not been fully expended in the last decade, the $30,000 sub-fund for unrepresented litigants is used up early every year, so that many unrepresented litigants are still unable to obtain assistance from the Fund.

Regardless of the effectiveness of both programs in meeting the needs of indigent litigants, both the Fund for indigent represented litigants and the sub-fund for unrepresented litigants are scheduled to sunset effective January 1, 2017. In order to help provide access to justice for indigent litigants, the Transcript Reimbursement Fund for both represented and unrepresented litigants must be continued beyond this year. Moreover, given that raising the cost of a transcript by 33% for indigent litigants may result in even less access to transcripts than they currently have, it is important that the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, particularly the fund for unrepresented litigants which today is underfunded, be increased at the same rate that the transcript fees are being increased by this bill. This will help ensure that indigent litigants have at least the same access to justice as they have today. The supporters of this bill, the court reporters whose licensing fees fund the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, agree that not only must the Fund continue in order to help ensure that indigent litigants have access to justice, but it should be increased as well.

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003156

Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2629

Author:(Roger Hernández) – As Amended Ver:April 20, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill, for the first time since 1990, increases fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts and for copies—in increments and by a total of about 45% over the next five years.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Court expenditures on transcripts averaged $20.5 million over the last three full fiscal years. Based on this amount and the incremental increases scheduled in the bill, General Fund costs to the court would increase by $1.6 million in 2017-18, by another $3.4 million in 2018-19, and by another $4.4 million in 2021-22, when the increases would be fully phased-in.

COMMENTS:

Background and Purpose. A court transcript is a verbatim record of what occurred at a court hearing. Without that official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy.

The fees charged by court reporters for transcripts have not been increased since 1990. In the 25 years since the fee increase, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by over 80%. This bill, sponsored by the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), increases the fee by approximately 45%, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017. (Transcript fees are assessed for each 100 words, known as the "folio rate.") The author argues that this bill advances a modest transcript fee adjustment in order to bring parity and fair compensation for court reporters. The bill is supported by court reporter associations and SEIU.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2629

Author:(Roger Hernández) – As Amended Ver:March 18, 2016

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: COURT REPORTERS: TRANSCRIPT FEES

KEY ISSUES:

1. SHOULD the statutory feeS that court reporters are permitted to charge for transcriptS, WHICH HAVE NOT beeN INCREASED FOR 25 YEARS, be increased BY 45 PERCENT under a phaseD-in plan over the next FIVE years?
2. IN ADDITION TO RAISING COSTS FOR COURTS AND LITIGANTS GENERALLY, WOULD INCREASING THE COST OF TRANSCRIPTS PLACE THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN NECESSARY TRANSCRIPTS OUT OF THE REACH OF INDIGENT LITIGANTS IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPROVING ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT REIMBURSEMENT FUND FOR SUCH LITIGANTS?

SYNOPSIS

A court transcript is a verbatim record of what occurred at a court hearing. Without that official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. The fees charged by court reporters for transcripts have not been increased since 1990. In the 25 years since the transcript fee was last increased, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by over 80 percent. As proposed to be amended, this bill, sponsored by the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), seeks to increase the fee by approximately 45 percent, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017. The author argues that this bill advances a modest transcript fee adjustment in order to bring parity and fair compensation for court reporters. The bill is supported by court reporter associations and SEIU.

As now in print, the bill would have increased fees the same amount, but over a three-year period and then be subject to ongoing CPI increases. As a result of opposition by the plaintiffs and defense bar, who were concerned that an increase in transcript costs would harm both trial courts budgets and increase costs to litigants who can ill afford any increased costs, the author has agreed to stretch the fee increase over five years and eliminate the ongoing CPI increases.

However, unless court reporters are in the courtroom, creating the record, a transcript cannot later be created at any price. This Committee has repeatedly stated that access to justice requires that California courts provide court reporters in all courtrooms. The supporters and the plaintiffs and defense bar strongly concur and have agreed to work together to seek funding in this year's Budget to bring court reporters back particularly to family law, but also to civil courts generally.

In order to defray the costs of court transcripts for indigent litigants, the Legislature created the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, which receives its $300,000 annual funding from court reporter license fees, but is scheduled to sunset effective January 1, 2017. To help ensure that indigent litigants have at least the same access to justice as they have today, supporters of this bill agree that not only must the Transcript Reimbursement Fund continue, but that it should be increased as necessary to cover the cost increase under this bill; and they have agreed to work to help ensure that occurs.

SUMMARY: Increases the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts and copies by 45 percent, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that the fee for transcription for the original printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed for each 100 words (also known as the “folio rate”) will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.98 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85.)
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $1.13 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $1.24 per 100 words.
2. Provides that the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.17 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15).
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.20 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.22 per 100 words.
3. Provides that the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original will be charged as follows:
   1. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018: $0.23 per 100 words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.17 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   2. From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.26 per 100 words, and $0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2021: $0.29 per 100 words, and $0.22 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
4. Clarifies that the fee for special daily copy service transcription is an additional 50 percent.
5. Makes legislative findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies the following transcript-related fees:
   1. The fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for each 100 words.
   2. The fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per 100 words.
   3. The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time. (Government Code Section 69950.)
2. Provides that, notwithstanding #1), above, if a local trial court had established transcription fees in effect on January 1, 2012 based on an estimate as to the number of words or folios on a typical transcript page, those transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall not be unilaterally changed. (Id.)
3. Establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (Fund) for the purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to otherwise afford those services. More specifically, requires funds generated by court reporter licensing fees, in excess of funds needed to support the Court Reporter Board’s operating budget, to be used by the Board for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the Fund. Authorizes the Fund only until January 1, 2017, unless another statute is enacted before that date that deletes or extends the sunset date. (Business & Professions Code Section 8030.2.)
4. Permits, until January 1, 2017, a person appearing pro se at any stage of the case to apply to receive assistance with transcription costs from the Fund, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and not to exceed $30,000 annually for all cases. (Business & Professions Code Section 8030.5.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: A court transcript is a verbatim record of what occurred at a court hearing. Without that official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. The fee charged by court reporters for original transcripts has not been increased since 1990. This bill, as proposed to be amended, seeks to increase the fee by approximately 45 percent, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2017. According to the author:

California has not adjusted the court transcript fee collected by court reporters since 1990. Court reporters employed by the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation structure in which the base salary of a court reporter is supplemented by the income from preparing required transcripts and providing other required transcription services.

The dual compensation structure protects the state from bearing the full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription services. This avoids the resulting consequences of overtime liability related to these services.

In order to bring parity and fair compensation for court reporters, this bill advances a modest transcript fee adjustment. This will ensure the system of dual compensation is up to date in providing sufficient payment for transcription services.

The last increase in the transcript fee occurred through SB 2376 (Presley), Chap. 505, Stats. 1990, which increased the transcription fee, effective 1991, for court reporters from $0.70 to $0.85 per 100 words for an original transcript, and from $0.10 to $0.15 per 100 words for each copy of a transcript ordered at the same time as the original. Since 1990, the CPI, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by 81 percent, but the costs of transcriptions has not increased.

This bill increases the fee for the original transcript per 100 words to $0.98 for 2017-18, $1.13 for 2019-20 and $1.24 for 2021 and thereafter. The bill similarly increases the fees, over five years, for each copy purchased at the same time as the original transcript from $0.15 to $0.22 per 100 words, and for a copy purchased without the original transcript from $0.20 to $0.29 per 100 words, while additional copies purchased at that time would increase from $0.15 to $0.22 per 100 words. These increases all represent a 45 percent increase from the current fees.

In support of raising these fees, which again have not been increased in over 25 years, CCRA writes that court reporter transcripts "are vital to the delivery of justice in California. Parties regularly rely on court records to prepare for future hearings, explore potential legal theories, as well as, ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. In essence, an official transcript is used both to enable parties to fully exercise their legal rights and to provide some level of accountability of our judicial process." CCRA explains that court reporters spend thousands of dollars to purchase their own equipment and "are subject to a dual compensation structure. The hours we work at the courthouse are paid for through a traditional employee wage or salary model. However, whenever an official transcript must be produced, we are required to spend evenings and weekends doing the work. This is uncompensated through salary or wages." Instead, it is compensated by a statutory transcript fee, which has not "been updated since 1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation."

Despite previous attempts, transcript fees not raise since 1990. There have been several attempts to raise the transcript fee since 1990, none of which have been successful. In 1999, SB 449 (Burton), passed the Legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor. That bill would have raised fees on the original transcript to $1.15 per 100 words, but, at the same time, would have lowered the fees on copies purchased with the original transcript from $0.15 to $0.10 per 100 words. That bill would also have expanded access to the Transcript Reimbursement Fund for indigent litigants to help ensure that any increase in transcription costs did not impact their ability to access justice. That bill was vetoed by then Governor Gray Davis, who wrote: "I am vetoing this bill because it would result in a significant increase in costs for the State's trial court system, which is supported by the General Fund, and the Court Reporters Board, which is supported by license fees paid by registered court reporters. . . . I believe this issue should be examined in the annual budget process."

AB 2305 (Klehs), 2006, would have changed the transcript fee from a folio rate to per page rate and set the fee for the original transcript at $3.57 per page, with the cost of additional copies set at $0.63 per page. That bill was referred to this Committee, but was not heard. The most recent attempt to raise the fee was AB 582 (Evans) in 2007, which would also have changed to a per page rate and increased the fees. That bill passed the Assembly, but was not heard in the Senate.

As a result of this lack of legislative action, transcript fees have not increased in 25 years, even though the cost of living, as measured by the CPI, has increased approximately 80 percent.

Access to a court transcript is an important component of access to justice. As discussed above, without the official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy. For example, when issuing a judgment in a contested family law matter, the judge often requires one of the parties to prepare a written judgment memorializing the orders of the court. Without a transcript, preparation of a judgment, and therefore enforcing the orders made by the judge, may be all but impossible. Similarly, if a litigant seeks to modify a judgment based on a change of circumstances, it is often necessary to understand, and communicate to the court, the circumstances the court initially took into account in making a custody or support order, for example. Absent a transcript, this too may be very difficult.

The Transcript Reimbursement Fund for represented and unrepresented indigent litigants. In order to defray the costs of court transcripts for indigent litigants, the Legislature created the Transcript Reimbursement Fund. The Fund was established by AB 1017 (Alatorre), Chap. 1350, Stats. 1980, and is maintained by a percentage of the dues imposed on certified shorthand reporters. AB 1017 was sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and California Rural Legal Assistance who argued that "because indigent litigants are unable to pay for transcripts they are effectively denied appropriate legal remedies." The Fund is used to reimburse court reporters the cost of preparing official court and deposition transcripts for indigent litigants, as defined, served by a qualified legal services project, qualified support center or other qualified project, or a pro bono attorney. Because of concerns that the huge volume of unrepresented parties could overwhelm the Fund, it had historically excluded litigants representing themselves at any stage of the case. The Fund receives $300,000 each year from court reporter license fees.

Unfortunately, not all indigent litigants are able to secure counsel to represent them. In fact, most indigent litigants in areas such as family law are forced to represent themselves in court. In response to concerns that indigent, unrepresented litigants have no ability to access the Fund, SB 1181 (Cedillo), Chap. 581, Stats. 2010, established a small sub-fund to help cover the costs of transcripts for indigent, unrepresented litigants. That sub-fund is limited to $30,000 annually, which is taken from the $300,000 in the Fund for represented litigants, and covers, at most, $1,500 per case. It appears that while the total Fund has not been fully expended in the last decade, the $30,000 sub-fund for unrepresented litigants is used up early every year, so that many unrepresented litigants are still unable to obtain assistance from the Fund.

Regardless of the effectiveness of both programs in meeting the needs of indigent litigants, both the Fund for indigent represented litigants and the sub-fund for unrepresented litigants are scheduled to sunset effective January 1, 2017. In order to help provide access to justice for indigent litigants, the Transcript Reimbursement Fund for both represented and unrepresented litigants must be continued beyond this year. Moreover, given that raising the cost of a transcript by 45 percent for indigent litigants may result in even less access to transcripts than they currently have, it is important that the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, particularly the fund for unrepresented litigants which today is underfunded, be increased at the same rate that the transcript fees are being increased by this bill. This will help ensure that indigent litigants have at least the same access to justice as they have today. The supporters of this bill, the court reporters whose licensing fees fund the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, agree that not only must the Fund continue in order to help ensure that indigent litigants have access to justice, but that it should be increased as necessary to cover the cost increase under this bill.

Cost increases for government entities: According to Judicial Council, the trial courts spent over $19 million on court transcripts in the 2014-15 fiscal year. If the fee increases proposed by this bill become effective, costs to the trial courts would increase by roughly $3 million in 2017 and by $9 million in 2021. Some courts purchase transcripts in criminal cases on behalf of the district attorneys and the public defenders, and thus this bill would not increase their costs. In other counties, the district attorneys and the public defenders purchase their own court transcripts. This Committee has heard from district attorney's offices in eight counties, including Contra Costa, Fresno and Santa Clara Counties. The 2015 transcript costs for those counties was $170,000, so the fee increase from the bill would amount to approximately $25,000 in 2017 and $76,000 in 2021. In addition, the Attorney General's Office estimates that it spends approximately $500,000 a year on court transcripts. The proposed increase would cost the Attorney General's office approximately an additional, $75,000 in 2017 and $225,000 in 2021.

Amendments remove opposition from plaintiff and defense bars. The cost increases in this bill will also impact other litigants. Consumer Attorneys of California and the California Defense Counsel had jointly opposed the bill because of significant concerns about how the bill "would harm trial court budgets and increase costs for litigants who can ill afford additional increases." The attorneys' groups had stated:

Our members who appear in court every day on civil cases have borne the brunt of the drastic cuts in court funding. We have faced escalating user fees for filing cases and motions while finding fewer civil courtrooms open for access to justice. This has included hourly and daily fees imposed for the use of court reporters employed by the court. Our members have asked whether they will soon be asked to pay hourly user fees for the services of the bailiff or the judge. Our tax dollars are intended to fund the judicial branch, and the devolution into excessive reliance on user fees has gone too far. As court reporters have been disappearing from civil courtrooms over the last several years, our members have been forced to bring in private pro tempore court reporters who are performing an official function. This is a highly dysfunctional situation that does not serve anyone well.

In response to those concerns, the author has agreed to stretch the fee increase over five years and eliminate the ongoing CPI increases. Moreover, the sponsors and the plaintiff and defense bar have agreed to work cooperatively to help bring court reporters back into courtrooms across California, as discussed more fully below. As a result, the Consumer Attorneys of California and the California Defense Counsel have removed their opposition to the bill.

Access to a court transcript begins with access to a court reporter. If no court reporter is present at the court proceeding, no transcript can be available; and, unfortunately, most courts in California today no longer provide court reporters in civil and family law matters. Thus for most of these matters, unless parties bring in their own court reporter to court, there is at best limited access to justice and an increase in the transcript fee is not relevant since there is no record of the court proceeding to transcribe.

As a result of the recession and state budget crisis, trial courts budgets were reduced, and, among other service reductions, many courts reduced or eliminated court reporters unless their services were mandated by statute. In order to better understand the impacts of budget reductions on the trial courts, this Committee independently surveyed the 58 trial courts in 2013 to assess what measures the courts had taken to address the cuts, including any reduction in court reporters. Of the 55 (out of 58) courts to respond, six had reduced expenditures for court reporters, and fully 30 courts reported that they had ceased providing court reporters for civil, family and probate proceedings.

Even as the court budgets have increased by millions of dollars over the last few years, courts have not added court reporters back into court proceedings. The Judicial Council provided updated information from 47 courts this year. Of those courts reporting, 34 did not generally provide court reporters for family law matters (including Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco), while 13 courts (including Los Angeles and Santa Clara) did.

In those courts that do not provide court reporters, parties who wish to have an official record of proceedings must hire and pay the substantial cost of providing their own private court reporter. If they do not do so, the litigants will be unable generally to appeal decisions, parties may be unable to draft orders effectively, and those attempting to recount what actually happened during proceedings will be unable to so with any degree of accuracy.

A recent appellate court decision summarized the problems of access to justice in a dissolution case in which the appellant was unable to provide an accurate transcript of the proceedings because there had not been a court reporter present at the trial court, an all too frequent occurrence in courts in California today. The appellate court wrote, in a footnote:

We are deeply troubled by the trial court's policy of conducting all family law matters without a reporter unless a reporter is engaged by one or both parties at their own expense. This policy is actually codified in a local rule stating, "The family court does not provide a court reporter in family law matters, except when possible a reporter will be provided for DCSS and restraining order matters. If you would like to have a court reporter present you will need to hire and pay all costs associated with the reporter." (Super. Ct. Santa Cruz County, Local Rules, rule 3.7.01.) As illustrated by this case, the absence of a verbatim record can preclude effective appellate review, cloaking the trial court's actions in an impregnable presumption of correctness regardless of what may have actually transpired. Such a regime can raise grave issues of due process as well as equal protection in light of its disparate impact on litigants with limited financial means. The practice becomes all the more troubling when viewed in combination with the statewide prohibition against privately recording court proceedings "for any purpose other than as personal notes." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.150(d).) Perhaps the time has come at last for California to enter the 20th century and permit parties to record proceedings electronically in lieu of the far less reliable method of human stenography and transcription. Until that day, however, we believe the right to effective appellate review cannot be permitted to depend entirely on the means of the parties. (In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 206 Cal. App. Lexis 138, 11, footnote 3.)

The need for court reporters and for accurate records is also now being briefed before the California Supreme Court in a medical malpractice case. In that case, Jameson v. Desta (2015) 241 Cal. App. 491, involving an indigent plaintiff who was granted a fee waiver, the San Diego trial court told the parties that there would be no court reporter available and if they wanted a record they would have to provide their own reporter. The parties did not. The trial court granted a motion for nonsuit in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. However, because there was no record of the court proceedings, the appellate court found that the plaintiff could not show that any error occurred at the trial court and upheld the trial court's judgment for the defendant. The Supreme Court took the case to decide if a party granted a fee waiver can be denied a court reporter and, as a result, an effective right to appeal. The decision in that case could impact whether court reporters (and hence the availability of a transcript) are required in cases involving indigent parties, but would not necessarily impact cases where parties do not qualify for a fee waiver, but are still unable to provide their own court reporter.

Supporters and the plaintiff and defense bars committed to work together to bring court reporters back into the courtroom. All stakeholders agree strongly that access to justice requires that California courts provide court reporters in all courtrooms, and for years this has been an issue of great concern to this Committee. To that end, the supporters of the bill, as well as the plaintiff and defense bar, have agreed to work together to seek funding in this year's Budget to bring court reporters back particularly to family law, but also to civil courts generally.

Do the statutory transcript fees apply to pro tempore court reporters brought in by private parties? Court reporters include official court reporters, who are employed by the court, and official court reporters pro tempore, who may be brought in by the court and appointed by the court to perform the duties of an official reporter if one is not available. (Government Code Section 70044.) Court reporters also include private court reporters who are brought in, and paid for, by private parties when no court reporter is provided by the court. These reporters are not court employees, but nonetheless prepare the official court record of the proceeding. The fees that are the subject of this bill do not explicitly state whether they apply to court reporters brought in by private parties, though it had been presumed by many that the statutory fee structure applied to them as well. However, a recent superior court decision from Los Angeles County, Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters Inc., held that the statutory fee limits do not apply to court reporters pro tempore brought in by private parties. (America Hernandez, Pro tem reporters' fees not capped, Daily Journal (Jan. 11, 2016).) Given that more and more courts no longer provide court reporters, more and more parties are relying on private, pro tempore reporters that they bring to court themselves and courts then appoint for a particular matter. If the Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters Inc. case were to become precedent -- and that is not at all clear since the case was just appealed last week and the parties are awaiting a briefing schedule -- this bill would likely not impact court reporters in civil and family law actions in the majority of courts today where official court reporters have been eliminated and parties' can only have a court reporter present if they choose to bring in their own private, pro tempore reporter. Thus, the impact of the bill, at least on non-criminal and juvenile court matters (since official court reporters are not required in those cases) is not completely clear.

Pending Related Legislation: AB 1834 (Wagner) would permit use of electronic recording in family law cases when a court reporter is unavailable. That bill was held in this Committee after a hearing.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Court Reporters Association (sponsor)

Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association

Northern California Court Reporters Association

Orange County Superior Court Reporters Association

Sacramento Official Court Reporters Association

San Diego Superior Court Reporters Association

SEIU California

Opposition (as proposed to be amended)

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew and Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334