More than money, less than candid

Since the publication of the column "Losing light in favor of darkness - LA court's relocation of reporters," (Daily Journal, Oct. 24), a lot has happened.

A rally/press conference regarding the relocation of court reporters was held adjacent to Stanley Mosk Courthouse on Nov. 2, where such politicians as California Senator Bob Hertzberg, Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Korentz, and Assemblymember Miguel Santiago spoke against relocation. Later that same day it was broadcast on ABC 7. Also on Nov. 2, 54 trial court CEOs issued a news release providing, inter alia, that "[f]unding is not the solution: There is no one to hire." On Nov. 15, Los Angeles County Superior Court ("LASC") announced the appointment of a new CEO who will assume CEO duties on Dec. 1.

The Nov. 2 news release includes facts, figures, charts, and even a section for additional resources; but what it lacks is candor. For example, page one features quotes from sources regarding the decline in qualified court reporters, but fails to address that LASC (biggest recipient of court reporter funding at $9.3 million) received suggestions from the court reporters association on ways to recruit court reporters (e.g., advertising in social media like Facebook and on employment websites like Indeed) as far back as 2015, but gave only a very weak response. Or address that LASC was encouraged to be present at the California Court Reporters Association convention since 2019 but didn't procure a vendor table at the convention until Sept. 2022, one month after announcement of the relocation. Or address that LASC purchased for only one month the smallest ad available in the court reporters journal approximately 2.5 years after the local court reporters association recommended a large color ad. Or that in 2019, a suggestion was made to LASC to host a meet-and-greet to recruit court reporters like many free-lance court reporting agencies do; LASC never responded.

The news release is as notable for its omissions as its admission. It provides the conclusionary statement that "today 71 percent of the state's 58 trial courts are actively recruiting for court reporters" without providing any information or source to substantiate their claim. The prior column on this issue averred that LASC was not actively recruiting court reporters and elaborated on the averment's basis as was done in this column providing a stark contrast to the news release's numbers without nuance. The foregoing statistic is also note-worthy for what it fails to reveal, namely why 39% of California's state courts are not actively recruiting for court reporters. Per the Attachment B to the Report to the Judicial Council of California for Jan. 21, 2022 meeting, Kings County received $120,292, Mendocino County received $85,892, Napa County received $101,069, and Sutter County received $87,348; but none of those counties' trial courts are actively recruiting for court reporters per the news release's omission. Is it because the funding has been used to hire court reporters? That can't be right because per the news release "[t]here is no one to hire." Maybe those counties don't need increased court reporter service time despite the decline in court reporters. But given such substantial funding for those four counties' trial courts and the news release's admission that the court reporter shortage exists and has been "long developing," that's unlikely.

The news release's conclusion that "more funding is not the solution" fails to acknowledge that money itself may not solve the problem but what money does may solve the problem. Money is the lubrication that makes the gears of our capitalistic system turn. In this situation, the $30 million allocated can be used to increase the amount of certified shorthand reporter programs and curriculums addressed on pages 1 and 2 of the news release. If that suggestion is infeasible, then the news release should explain why it's infeasible. Or why making the profession "more attractive to young, potential court reporters" only is mentioned in relation to its sole solution which doesn't include hiring more court reporters. What are those 54 counties doing to make the profession "more attractive to young, potential court reporters" right now? Addressing LASC, it only purchased in September 2022 a 1/4 page ad in the court reporters' journal. More effort should be made to recruit people to be court reporters . . . effort that goes beyond an ad in a journal.

The news release is long on data while short on suggestions to solve the problem. In fact, the news release only provides one solution - "changes to the current statutory framework for court reporting." To call for such a solution when the CEOs fail to account for the $30 million attained via Gov. Gavin Newsom signing Senate Bill 170 into law on Sept. 23, 2021 is dismissive of the legislative framework and the people who worked to make such funding possible. Have the 54 trial court CEOs proven that they have responsibly used the $30 million allocation? Or will they simply allow the unspent portion of the $30 million to revert to the General Fund per Senate Bill 170's terms?

Furthermore, the news release runs counter to the push from other areas of California's legal system to expand access to justice. Probate Code section 10810 limits attorney's fees for ordinary services by the attorney for an estate's personal representative so that the person or estate can't be preyed upon. Likewise, the Family Law Facilitator Act (Family Code section 10001-10015) established a system for resolving familial disputes that is "accessible to families that cannot afford legal representation." Family Code section 10001(a)(4). The State Bar of California ("California Bar") entered the fray by proposing a paraprofessional program that would allow non-lawyers to offer services for most family law matters and unlawful detainer actions among other areas. (calbar.ca.gov/paraprofessionals-FAQ). Although Assembly Bill 2958 restricts California Paraprofessional Program and many people called for the program to be disbanded, at least the stated intent of the program is noble. Earlier this year, the First Appellate Court supported increased access to justice by ruling that "the trial court has jurisdiction to address [plaintiff/appellant's] request and, if he demonstrates financial inability to pay the anticipated arbitration costs, to require [defendant/respondent] to pay [petitioner/appellant's] share of the arbitrator's fee or waive the right to arbitration." Aronow v. Superior Court (Emergent, LLP), 76 Cal. App. 5th 865, 885 (2022). Surely sincere and substantial effort can be made to spend the court reporter funding for its intended use; effort beyond half- hearted and unsubstantiated "actively recruiting."

Another troubling aspect of the news release is that it appears to lack transparency or at least fails to explore other options. Not only does the news release fail to provide details as to efforts to actively recruit court reporters (or answer any of the questions posed in the Oct. 24 column), it fails to indicate an approximate amount of the funding that has already been disbursed. In contrast, the California Bar established the Client Trust Account Protection program to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023 to ensure proper accounting and safeguards for client funds entrusted to attorneys. The California Bar requires accounting of the advocates of justice, i.e., attorneys, but where is the accounting required of the administrators of justice, i.e., trial court CEOs?

The Supreme Court of California reasoned "human beings are important in their own right, and that they must be treated with understanding, respect, and even compassion." Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, 57 Cal. 4th 197, 213 (2013) (quoting People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal. 3d 260, 267-8 (1979)). Are the people of California being treated with understanding, respect, and compassion by trial court CEOs who are maximizing the $30 million funding to do the most good for the most people? Is LASC and the other counties abiding by the will of the people (via their elected officials who helped Senate Bill 170 become law) by working aggressively to recruit and retain court reporters?

This is more than money; this is about deterioration of our society while persons tasked to cure it are dilatory while not fully engaging with people who can help. And those people who can help are eager to work on solutions that don't involve relocation. Hopefully the new administrator and incoming Presiding Judge at LASC and administrators in the other counties can see the light in the midst of darkness and do better to live up to the ideals espoused in Today's Fresh Start.