New temporary legislation will codify remote court appearances and electronic documentation, and expand court reporting licenses.
The 2021 California Court Efficiency Act, (SB241) which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Sept. 22, allows witnesses and lawyers to appear remotely, and authorizes entities that are not California-based or shorthand reporting corporations to be employed as court reporters if they meet specific requirements.
“We have a great deal of challenge with regard to access to justice,” said bill author and lawyer Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange County) at a hearing. “It is becoming more and more expensive for all participants to seek justice in California.”
Remote proceedings
The law allows a party to appear remotely only if the court has the necessary technology with enough quality to effectively manage the proceeding, and if agreed upon by both counsels and the parties themselves. If the audio quality is too poor for the court reporter, attorney or translator the hearing may not be held remotely under the law.
Emergency orders had previously expanded remote appearance options, but those are set to expire 90 days after the governor’s executive order expires in March 2022. Prior to the emergency order, remote appearances could be done through telephone, with a statutory $94 cost per appearance.
The San Bernardino County Bar Association is attempting to raise $250,000 to purchase computer and telecommunication equipment for the San Bernardino Superior Court.
Expert witnesses may also appear remotely, unless there is good cause to compel in-person testimony.
Trial or evidentiary hearings may be entirely remote, initiated by the court or counsel, unless a party shows it should not be allowed.
Entire trials may be remote under the law. Individuals may not be compelled to appear remotely.
The Judicial Council urged Newsom to sign the law in an open letter on the claimed benefits of providing safe and timely access to justice, increasing participation of litigants, attorneys and court personnel, reducing time and expense for residents who would otherwise have to lose time from work and pay for travel.
“In order to avoid further delays or outright denials of access to justice, remote access must become a basic service rather than a temporary way to address current statutory restrictions on access to the courts,” reads the letter, signed by Cory Jasperson, director of governmental affairs.
The remote proceedings aspect of the law sunsets July 1, 2023.
Uncharted territory
“There will always be a space for in-person hearings, and that’s OK, that’s fine,” said Kyle Brodie, San Bernardino Superior Court judge and Judicial Council Technology Committee chair.
“The reality is for many of the proceedings, they are short, they are not Earth-shattering,” Brodie continued. If there are lawyers based in San Francisco and Los Angeles, who have a hearing together, they can spend three hours in travel for a three-minute meeting. It helps everyone to have a virtual option for situations like that, he said, but “every case is its own story.”
The Judicial Council will figure out how the Court Efficiency Act will look in the judicial codes, but Brodie stressed that courts are very early in the process of virtual hearings, after conducting in-person meetings for hundreds of years.
Court reporting
Entities across the United States, which are not shorthand reporting corporations, will be able to transcribe proceedings in local courts if they have one California board-certified reporter serve as a reporter-in-charge. The reporter-in-charge would be responsible for the entity’s compliance with state laws and regulations.
The entity will also have to pay a less-than-$500 yearly fee, and will have to be individually approved by the Court Reporters Board of California.
“The board’s ability to serve and protect California consumers has been negatively impacted by a growing disregard for existing laws by non-licensee-owned firms,” said Davina Hurt, a public member of the Court Reporters Board of California, in support of the law during a senate committee meeting April 20. The new law will allow companies outside of the state to engage in reporting work up to the state’s standard, Hurt argued.
The court reporting aspect of the law will sunset Jan. 1, 2024.
Electronic service
The Court Efficiency Act also allows parties to electronically serve case documents, unless the document is required to be served by certified or registered mail. Electronic filing can be required by trial courts.
Receiving parties may withdraw consent for electronic service, and confidential or sealed records must be served through encrypted methods.
Courts cannot charge filing or service fees that are more than the court’s actual cost of electronic document filing and service, under the law.
Supporters and costs
Twenty-six entities officially supported the bill, including the San Bernardino Inland Juvenile Panel Attorneys and the Judicial Council of California. Five organizations opposed, including the California Court Reporters Association.
A senate analysis estimated the registration of court reporters would require low hundreds of thousands of dollars, that information technology would cost $55,000, and one-time costs of tens of millions of dollars to get equipment and technology infrastructure.
Related: SB Superior gets court technology modernization funding
