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 July 1, 2019, 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, 2023, 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, 2019, 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, 2023, with regard to transcript fees, as specified.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 2757 (Reyes) - Court reporters

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

Bill Summary:

AB 2757 would increase the fees charged for transcripts of court proceedings.

Fiscal Impact:

• Costs of approximately $7 million annually to the courts in increased fees for transcripts once gradual rate increases are fully implemented starting in 2023. (Special fund*)
• Unknown, potentially-significant increase in expenditure to cover the costs of helping indigent litigants purchase transcripts in civil proceedings. (Special fund**)
• Unknown costs to Judicial Council to develop and report information related to recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures. (Special fund*)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Transcript Reimbursement Fund

Background:

The fees that court reporters, including private reporters, may charge for transcripts are set by statute. These fees were last adjusted in 1991. Currently, the fee for an original printed copy of a transcript is $0.85 per 100 words, with a copy of the original that is purchased at the same time as the original is $0.15 per 100 words. A first copy of the transcript purchased at a time other than with the original is $0.20 per 100 words and $0.15 for each additional copy thereafter. Notwithstanding the above, if a 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 must be the transcription fees for proceedings in those courts, and the policy or practice for determining transcription fees in those courts cannot be changed unilaterally.

In addition to being able to charge the courts and other interested parties for transcripts, some court reporters are employed by the courts and receive wages and benefits. According to the Judicial Council, 83 percent of the superior courts in California have at least one court reporter on staff, receiving an average base salary of $99,432 as of the beginning of the 2017-18 fiscal year.

Additionally, excess fees collected by the Court Reporters Board from licensees in the amount of $300,000 annually are required to be deposited into the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, a continuously-appropriated fund, to provide reimbursement for the cost of providing shorthand reporting services to indigent litigants in civil cases. Low-income individuals appearing pro se may apply for funds from the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, subject to specified requirements and limitations, including that total disbursements are prohibited from exceeding $75,000 annually and $1,500 per case. Provisions of law related to the Transcript Reimbursement Fund are set to expire on January 1, 2020 unless extended by legislation.

Proposed Law:

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

Additionally, this bill would require Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2023 recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures in California. Lastly, this bill would make specified legislative findings and declarations related to the dual compensation structure of court reporters and court reporters pro tempore and the necessity to revise the fees for transcripts.

Related Legislation:

AB 2354 (Rubio, 2018) would require a court reporter at specified family law proceedings in which testimony is received by the court. AB 2354 is pending in this Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 2629 (Hernandez, 2016) would have increased the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts, and copies thereof, incrementally over a five-year period, as specified. AB 2629 was vetoed by the governor, who stated in his message that the “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.”

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. AB 582 was amended to address a different subject matter and subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, where it was not heard.

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 never heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

Staff Comments:

By incrementally raising the fees charged for original transcriptions of court proceedings and copies over the next four years, this bill would result in a significant increase in annual court costs. Average court expenditures on transcripts were approximately $19.1 million annually during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 fiscal years. Based on the fee increases proposed by AB 2757, transcription costs to the courts statewide would increase by about $7 million annually once the rate increases are fully implemented, assuming the volume of transcription usage remains consistent and that the fee increases are adopted statewide.

Relatedly, raising fees for transcription services could have the effect of increasing future reimbursements paid out of the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF) due to higher reimbursement costs for transcripts. By increasing the level of reimbursements potentially paid out of the TRF due to higher transcription fees, this measure could result in additional costs incurred by the TRF during its operative period and should it be extended.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2757 (Author:Reyes)

Version: February 16, 2018

Hearing Date: June 19, 2018

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: JDT

SUBJECT

Court reporters

DESCRIPTION

This bill would, over the course of the next four years, incrementally increase the fees that court reporters may charge for transcripts, and copies thereof, as specified.

BACKGROUND

Transcripts generated by court reporters are essential to the administration of justice. Unfortunately, California does not mandate the use of court reporters in certain civil actions, forcing parties to choose between forgoing the creation of a formal record of the proceedings and paying for the services of private reporters.

The fees that court reporters, including private reporters, may charge for transcripts are set by statute. However, those fees have not increased since 1991. In the years since, the Consumer Price Index, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by over 80 percent. This bill would, by January 1, 2023, increase the transcript fees that may be charged by court reporters by 33 percent.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law 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 office, in a criminal case, as specified, and in a civil case on the order of the court or at the request of a party. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 269(a).)

Existing law provides that the report of the official reporter, or 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 that testimony and proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 273(a).)

Existing law establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Court Reporters Board of California that is responsible for the licensure, regulation, and discipline of shorthand court reporters. (Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 8000 & 8005.1.)

Existing law prohibits a person from engaging in the practice of shorthand reporting, including pro tempore official reporters, unless that person is the holder of a certificate in full force and effect issued by the board. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8016.)

Existing law defines the practice of shorthand reporting as the making, by means of written symbols or abbreviations in shorthand or machine shorthand writing, of a verbatim record of any oral court proceeding, deposition, court ordered hearing or arbitration, or proceeding before any grand jury, referee, or court commissioner and the accurate transcription thereof. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8017.)

Existing law provides that any natural person holding a valid certificate as a shorthand reporter is a “certified shorthand reporter,” and that no other person, firm, or corporation may assume or use that title unless so certified. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8018.)

Existing law provides that a violation of the provisions governing the regulation of shorthand reporters, or any support provided in the commission of such a violation, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 8018 & 8019.)

Existing law provides that a superior court may appoint as many competent phonographic reporters, to be known as official reporters of such court, and such official reporters pro tempore, as are deemed necessary for the performance of the duties and the exercise of the powers conferred by law upon the court and its members. (Gov. Code Sec. 69941.)

Existing law prohibits a person from being appointed to the position of official reporter of any court unless the person has first obtained a license to practice as a certified shorthand reporter from the Court Reporters Board of California. (Gov. Code Sec. 69942.)

Existing law provides that before entering upon the duties of his or her office, the official reporter of any court or official reporter pro tempore must take and subscribe the constitutional oath of office. (Gov. Code Sec. 69946.)

Existing law prescribes the fees for reporting testimony and proceedings at $55 a day, or any fractional part thereof, and sets varying levels of compensation for court reporters based on the county in which the reporting occurs. (Gov. Code Sec. 69948.)

Existing law provides that when there is no official reporter in attendance and a reporter pro tempore is appointed, his or her reasonable expenses for traveling and detention must be fixed and allowed by the court and paid in like manner. (Gov. Code Sec. 69952.)

Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules to ensure all of the following:

• that parties are given adequate and timely notice of the availability of an official court reporter;
• that if an official court reporter is not available, a party may arrange for the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter, the costs therefor recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party, as otherwise provided by law; and
• that if the services of an official pro tempore reporter are utilized, no other charge may be made to the parties. (Gov. Code Sec. 68086(c) & (d).)

Existing law states: “If the services of an official court reporter are not available for a hearing or trial in a civil case, a party may arrange for the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter. It is that party’s responsibility to pay the reporter’s fee for attendance at the proceedings, but the expense may be recoverable as part of the costs, as provided by law.” (Rule of Court, Sec. 2.956(c).)

Existing law provides, that when needed in order for judicial business of the superior court to be diligently carried on without delay, a pro tempore official reporter may be appointed to perform the duties of a phonographic reporter in such matter, or until a regular official reporter becomes available for such service. A pro tempore official reporter for such service may be appointed by the presiding judge of the court and the judge presiding in the department where the reporter will serve. If the appointment is made for service in a contested matter, it must be made pursuant to a written stipulation of the parties appearing at the trial or hearing or other proceeding to be reported by the pro tempore reporter. (Gov. Code Sec. 70044(a).)

Existing law provides that a pro tempore reporter who has passed the test on qualifications and has a certificate thereof on file among the records of the court, as prescribed, and who has been appointed a pro tempore official reporter by a majority of the judges of such court, as specified, may serve in a matter without further order or stipulation of the parties. (Gov. Code Sec. 70044(b).)

Existing law authorizes fees for transcripts and copies thereof as follows:

• for the original copy: $0.85 per 100 words;
• for a copy purchased at the same time as the original: $0.15 per 100 words; and
• for a first copy not purchased at the same time as the original: $0.20 per 100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.

This bill would, beginning January 1, 2019, incrementally increase those fees until January 1, 2023, at which point they will be 33 percent higher than under existing law.

This bill would clarify that the fee for special daily copy service transcription is an additional 50 percent.

This bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature, by January 1, 2023, on recommendations to increase uniformity in transcript rate expenditures with the intent to not reduce the rates of pay or overall compensation of court reporters or jeopardize collective bargaining agreements.

This bill would make the following 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 28 years, and fees for copies purchased at the same time as the original transcript have only increased once in 105 years;
• 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; and
• therefore, it is necessary to revise the fees for transcripts prepared by official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Court reporters remain the most efficient and cost-effective method to make accurate and complete verbatim records of court proceedings. We must adequately compensate the individuals in this profession who provide such crucial components of our court system.

2. The importance of transcripts of proceedings

California does not mandate the use of court reporters in certain civil actions, and budget cuts have resulted in increasingly shallow pools of official court reporters, prompting parties to seek the services of private reporters. Privately-retained reporters who serve as official reporters pro tempore do so under appointment by the superior court. (Gov. Code Secs. 69941 & 70044.) By accepting that appointment, persons serving as official reporters pro tempore become ministerial officers of the court and are subject to the jurisdiction of the court during the period of their appointment to the same extent as an official reporter. (Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1050.) However, because parties generally must pay for a court reporter when one is not provided, they often forgo using a private court reporter.

As a matter of public policy, accurate transcripts of proceedings are vital to the administration of justice for a variety of reasons, including: establishing a record in order to subject errant rulings to the scrutiny of higher courts; enabling counsel to impeach a witness by showing that the witness made prior inconsistent statements while under oath; prosecuting a person for perjury; and ensuring that court orders accurately reflect the judge’s ruling on nuanced issues such as visitation rights or division of property. If the parties later disagree on a ruling, they may be forced to re-litigate the case—a considerable burden on the parties and courts. Moreover, a lack of transcripts of court proceedings deprives the general public of a means to independently evaluate what transpires in courts. Accurate, authoritative transcripts of proceedings are thus critical to ensuring judicial accountability, due process, equal protection, and access to justice.

3. Reasonable fee increase

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). Several prior attempts have failed, including AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006), AB 582 (Evans, 2007), AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006), and, most recently, AB 2629 (Hernández, 2016). That bill was substantially similar to this bill, but it would have increased the fee for copies slightly more than this bill would. This Committee argued that those proposed increases were reasonable, and noted that if fee increases had kept pace with inflation, the $0.85 cent charge would be $1.49 in 2016. Today, that figure would be $1.58. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator <https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=.85&

year1=199101&year2=201804> [as of June 8, 2016].) However, that bill was vetoed by the Governor on grounds that it would have resulted “in additional pressure to the General Fund by increasing costs to the judicial system.”

This bill would increase the transcript fees according to the following schedule:

The sponsor, California Court Reporters Association, writes as follows:

Official court reporters and pro tempore reporters provide a valuable service for our judicial system. . . Unlike many other professions, reporters spend thousands of dollars to purchase their own steno equipment, computers, printers, software and software updates, as well as spending hours upon hours customizing dictionaries. We often frequently pay out of pocket for continuing education courses as well as other ongoing costs.

As court reporters, we 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, by law a transcript fee is applied at a rate of $0.85 for every 100 words of an official transcript. This 100 word rate has not been updated since 1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation. AB 2757 will address this outdated fixed fee rate by implementing a modest increase that still lags behind 100% of inflation.

4. Amendment

The author has proposed to amend the bill so that the fee increases begin July 1, 2019, at the beginning of the fiscal year, instead of January 1, 2019.

Support: None known

Opposition: None known

HISTORY

Source: California Court Reporters Association

Related Pending Legislation: None known

Prior Legislation: AB 2629 (Hernández, 2016) See Comment 3.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 52, Noes 23)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 13, Noes 3)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 2)

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

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:

Author:(Reyes)

As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Increases the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts and copies by 33%, through a series of step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2019. 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, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.93 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85.)
   2. From January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022: $1.03 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2023: $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, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.16 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15).
   2. From January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022: $0.18 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2023: $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, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $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, 2021 to December 31, 2022: $0.23 per 100 words, and $0.18 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2023: $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, 2023, 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.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, increased costs, in the millions of dollars annually (GF), to the courts for expenditures on transcripts. (In recent years, the courts have spent approximately $21 million each year on transcripts. Using this average, courts can expect increased costs of approximately $1.9 million in each calendar year 2019 and 2020, $4.5 million in each calendar year 2021 and 2022, and $6.9 million in calendar year 2023 and each year thereafter.)

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 and copies by 33% through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2019.

According to the author, an increase is warranted because these transcript fees have not been adjusted since 1990, and to do so would help address longstanding gender pay inequity given that the majority of court reporters are female. The author states: "Court reporters remain the most efficient and cost-effective method to make accurate and complete verbatim records of court proceedings. We must adequately compensate the individuals in this profession who provide such crucial components of our court system."

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.

This bill increases the fee for the original transcript per 100 words from $0.85 to $0.93 for 2019-20, $1.03 for 2021-22 and $1.13 for 2023 and thereafter. This bill similarly increases the fees, over five years, for each copy purchased at the same time as the original transcript from $0.15 to $0.20 per 100 words, and for a copy purchased without the original transcript from $0.20 to $0.26 per 100 words, while additional copies purchased at that time would increase from $0.15 to $0.20 per 100 words. These increases represent a 33% increase from the current fees, although they would be phased in over a five-year period through a series of step increases.

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. Then-Governor Gray Davis 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."

In 2006, AB 2305 (Klehs) 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 the Judiciary Committee, but was not heard. In 2007, AB 582 (Evans) would also have changed the fee to a per page rate and increased the fee amounts, but that bill died in the Senate after being passed by the Assembly. The most recent attempt to raise transcript fees was in 2016, when AB 2629 (Hernández) would have implemented similar incremental increases as this bill, but was vetoed by Governor Brown because of "its increasing costs to the judicial system."

As a result of this lack of legislative action, transcript fees have not increased in 28 years, even though the cost of living, as measured by the CPI, has increased approximately 80 %. The sponsor of this bill, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), explains the need for the proposed increase as follows:

As court reporters, we 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, by law a transcript fee is applied at a rate of $0.85 for every 100 words of an official transcript. This 100 word rate has not been updated since 1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation. AB 2757 will address this outdated fixed fee rate by implementing a modest increase that still lags behind 100% of inflation.

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), Chapter 1350, Statutes of1980, and is maintained by a percentage of the dues imposed on certified shorthand reporters. The Fund is used to reimburse court reporters for 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.

In order to help provide access to justice for indigent litigants, the Transcript Reimbursement Fund for both represented and unrepresented litigants must be sufficiently funded. 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 the Fund should be increased as necessary to cover the cost increase under this bill in order to help ensure that indigent litigants have access to justice.

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003036

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2757

Author:(Reyes) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2018

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

SUMMARY:

This bill increases, generally by 33% over four years, the statutory fees charged by court reporters for transcripts and copies of transcripts. Specifically, this bill increases the 100-word transcript fees according to the following schedule:

FISCAL EFFECT:

Increased costs, in the millions of dollars annually (GF), to the courts for expenditures on transcripts. (In recent years, the courts have spent approximately $21 million each year on transcripts. Using this average, courts can expect increased costs of approximately $1.9 million in each calendar year 2019 and 2020, $4.5 million in each calendar year 2021 and 2022, and $6.9 million in calendar year 2023 and each year thereafter.)

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Statute sets the fees court reporters may charge for transcripts. Those fees have not increased since 1991. In the 26 years since then, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has increased by over 80%.
2. Purpose. According to the author:

Court reporters remain the most efficient and cost-effective method to make accurate and complete verbatim records of court proceedings. We must adequately compensate the individuals in this profession who provide such crucial components of our court system.

The author additionally notes that most court reporters are women and asserts that increasing the statutory fees court reporters may charge will help address pay inequity among genders.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUBJECT: : TRANSCRIPT FEES

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE STATUTORY FEES THAT COURT REPORTERS ARE PERMITTED TO CHARGE FOR TRANSCRIPTS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INCREASED FOR 28 YEARS, BE INCREASED BY 33 PERCENT UNDER A PHASED-IN PLAN OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS?

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 28 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.

This bill, sponsored by the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), seeks to increase transcript fees by approximately 33 percent, through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2019. The author argues that this bill advances a modest transcript fee adjustment in order to bring parity and fair compensation for court reporters, an industry that is dominated by women. CCRA contends that whenever an official transcript must be produced, court reporters often need to spend evenings and weekends doing the work—which is time uncompensated through salary or wages. Instead, by law a transcript fee is applied at a rate of $0.85 for every 100 words of an official transcript. This 100 word rate has not been updated since 1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation, and CCRA notes that the moderate increases sought by this bill still lag behind 100% of inflation.

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. To help ensure that indigent litigants have at least the same access to justice as they have today, supporters of this bill agree that the Transcript Reimbursement Fund should be increased as necessary to cover the cost increase under this bill, and they have agreed to work to help ensure that occurs. Consumer Attorneys of California and California Defense Counsel are neutral on this bill, and there is no known opposition at this time.

SUMMARY: Increases the fees charged by court reporters for original transcripts and copies by 33 percent, through a series of step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2019. 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, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.93 per 100 words (an increase from $0.85.)
   2. From January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022: $1.03 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2023: $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, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $0.16 per 100 words (an increase from $0.15).
   2. From January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022: $0.18 per 100 words.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2023: $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, 2019 to December 31, 2020: $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, 2021 to December 31, 2022: $0.23 per 100 words, and $0.18 for each additional copy purchased at the same time.
   3. Beginning January 1, 2023: $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, 2023, 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.

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. (Government Code Section 69950.)
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, 2020. (Business & Professions Code Section 8030.2.)
4. Permits, until January 1, 2020, 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 8030.6.)

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 seeks to increase the fee for original transcripts and copies by 33% through step increases over the next five years, commencing in 2019.

According to the author, an increase is warranted because these transcript fees have not been adjusted since 1990, and to do so would help address longstanding gender pay inequity given that the majority of court reporters are female. The author states:

Women are often paid less than their male counterparts. This pay inequity is further illustrated when a female dominated profession, like the court reporters, have not been given an adjustment for a key component of their compensation since 1990. AB 2757 would help create an incremental increase in the transcript fees which these highly skilled employees create on their free time, off of work hours, to ensure appropriate compensation.

Court reporters remain the most efficient and cost-effective method to make accurate and complete verbatim records of court proceedings. We must adequately compensate the individuals in this profession who provide such crucial components of our court system.

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.

This bill increases the fee for the original transcript per 100 words from $0.85 to $0.93 for 2019-20, $1.03 for 2021-22 and $1.13 for 2023 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 $0.20 per 100 words, and for a copy purchased without the original transcript from $0.20 to $0.26 per 100 words, while additional copies purchased at that time would increase from $0.15 to $0.20 per 100 words. These increases represent a 33 percent increase from the current fees, although they would be phased in over a five-year period through a series of step increases.

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."

In 2006, AB 2305 (Klehs) 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. In 2007, AB 582 (Evans) would also have changed the fee to a per page rate and increased the fee amounts, but that bill died in the Senate after being passed by the Assembly. The most recent attempt to raise transcript fees was in 2016, when AB 2629 (Hernández) would have implemented similar incremental increases as this bill, but was vetoed by Governor Brown because of "its increasing costs to the judicial system."

As a result of this lack of legislative action, transcript fees have not increased in 28 years, even though the cost of living, as measured by the CPI, has increased approximately 80 percent. The sponsor of this bill, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA), explains the need for the proposed increase as follows:

Official court reporters and pro tempore reporters provide a valuable service for our judicial system. . . Unlike many other professions, reporters spend thousands of dollars to purchase their own steno equipment, computers, printers, software and software updates, as well as spending hours upon hours customizing dictionaries. We often frequently pay out of pocket for continuing education courses as well as other ongoing costs.

As court reporters, we 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, by law a transcript fee is applied at a rate of $0.85 for every 100 words of an official transcript. This 100 word rate has not been updated since 1991, falling far behind the rate of inflation. AB 2757 will address this outdated fixed fee rate by implementing a modest increase that still lags behind 100% of inflation.

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 for 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.

In order to help provide access to justice for indigent litigants, the Transcript Reimbursement Fund for both represented and unrepresented litigants must be sufficiently funded. Moreover, given that raising the cost of a transcript by 33 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 the Fund should be increased as necessary to cover the cost increase under this bill in order to help ensure that indigent litigants have access to justice. CCRA writes: "(We are) working on a budget request as well as establishing a shift in membership dues in order to adequately address costs to the Judiciary budget as well as the Transcript Reimbursement Fund."

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. In 2016, the Judicial Council provided updated information from 47 courts across the state. 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.)

Under Burd, statutory transcript fees also 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. In a recent court decision published November 29, 2017, the Court of Appeal (2^nd District) reversed a lower trial court decision and instead held that the statutory transcription rates prescribed by sections 69950 and 69954 apply to any court reporter producing a transcript of a civil court proceeding, regardless of whether the reporter is employed by the superior court or privately retained by a party. (Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc. (2017), B271694.) 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 who courts then appoint for a particular matter. As a result of the Burd decision (assuming it is not overturned), this bill will likely 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.

Previous Related Legislation: AB 2629 (Hernández) of 2016 was substantially similar to this bill, and would have also increased transcription fees by 33% over a five-year transition period. That bill was vetoed by the Governor on grounds that it would have resulted "in additional pressure to the General Fund by increasing costs to the judicial system."

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Court Reporters Association (sponsor)

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: