Electronic reporting:
Benefits include lower costs, more flexibility
 |
Ardaiz |
By JAMES ARDAIZ
Confronted with a reduced budget and recognition of emergent technology, the
judiciary has proposed implementation of discretionary use of digital electronic
recording in courtrooms in California. These courtrooms would preferably be
in low transcript volume courts such as family, probate, law and motion and
limited jurisdiction proceedings.
Frequently referred to by opponents as tape systems, these are instead highly
sophisticated digital recording devices. California is one of the very few jurisdictions
that preclude discretionary electronic recording by statute. Even federal courts
permit it.
What is proposed is the availability of digital recordings that can be converted
to certified transcripts as needed by the user. Most evaluations of a court
proceeding require a transcript in order to accurately evaluate what occurred.
A digital recording allows users to evaluate what transpired and make a decision
whether a transcript is necessary or desirable.
Opponents claim it will increase costs of transcripts and lower accuracy. There
is no question that cost and accuracy are issues that must be considered. What
is at issue for the judiciary is the ability to control cost and implement modern
technology. What is not in issue is the judiciary's insistence that costs are
contained and accuracy is preserved.
First, current digital systems can be installed at a one-time cost not exceeding
$15,000 per courtroom. These systems will allow recordings that can be sold
to the parties for minimal cost and high user flexibility. Highly accurate transcripts
can be easily prepared in fairly short time periods. Immediate availability
to users, electronic transmission, minimization of copy costs all become a reality.
Why digital recording? The answer is costs and shortage of personnel. Courts
are facing a shortage of court reporters that court reporter organizations acknowledge
is a national problem. Lack of reporters inhibits flexible court operations
and requires expensive per diem reporters.
Second, a highly trained certified court reporter costs a statewide average
of $89,000 a year for salary and benefits. Reporters must be in courts even
when the actual demand for transcripts is low. Putting reporters in courts with
low transcript demand makes little economic sense. Most family law judges would
agree, for example, that very few family law cases require transcription.
The justification for electronic recording is simple: significantly reduced
recordation costs; enhanced court flexibility in dealing with reporter shortages;
enhanced ability to control costs; increased accessibility of the record; and
less expense for litigants.
Opponents argue that these systems will not save money because monitors must
be hired to ensure the machine is working. It is correct that the systems need
someone to monitor that they are working, but dedicated monitors in addition
to traditional court personnel have not proven necessary in most cases.
Opponents argue transcript accuracy will suffer. Unbiased studies show that
the accuracy level is as high or higher than certified reporters. A recording
can be checked for errors and resolves differences of opinion.
Any lawyer who has spent time settling the record in a case can appreciate
this issue. Logic dictates that a recording only enhances accuracy. That is
why so many reporters currently record testimony simultaneously with stenographic
recordation in order to confirm their accuracy.
Finally, technology has simply changed the way business has been done in the
past. Modern technology allows accurate recordation, ease of use and efficient
operation and cost. That is not to say that court reporters should not be used
in certain types of courts. Court reporters provide speed of transcription and
real time reporting that is not available with current technology. However,
not every courtroom requires real time technology and immediate conversion of
stenography to transcript.
The proposal by the judiciary seeks to address current practices and costs
that are no longer technologically justifiable. The judiciary's proposal seeks
to preserve the jobs of our current court reporter employees and maximize their
flexibility.
At issue is whether current technology justifies costs based on the significantly
more labor-intensive practices of the days before personal computers and high-speed
printers. An example is the charge of $.41 for a copy of an original page in
addition to the average charge of $2.34 for the original page. Should the courts
pay $.41 to copy a page given current technology? Much of what is statutorily
protected is an historical evolution based on practices of many years ago and
not the current available process.
Courts cannot avoid seeking changes which will minimize costs to attorneys
and the public simply because they are politically difficult or a different
way of delivering good service.
James Ardaiz is the presiding justice of Fifth District Court of Appeal
in Fresno. He chairs the Judicial Council's Reporting of the Record Task Force.
|