AB 1189 creates two new, state-regulated credentials: a certified digital reporter (to capture electronic records in proceedings) and a certified legal transcriptionist (to produce and certify transcripts derived from those recordings). The bill authorizes digital reporters to administer oaths, operate and monitor electronic recording equipment, and maintain chain of custody; it authorizes legal transcriptionists to transcribe and certify those recordings for use in court.
The measure also amends deposition and evidence rules to recognize digitally captured transcripts when certain supervision and certification conditions are met, requires the Court Reporters Board to set fees for the new credentials, and makes it an unfair labor practice for courts to replace certified shorthand reporters with digital staff under a presumption tied to near-concurrent hiring and firing. The changes rework how courts may use electronic recording in limited civil and misdemeanor cases and attaches regulatory and procedural requirements intended to preserve the integrity of the official record while expanding non‑stenographic options.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates two new certification tracks under the Court Reporters Board: digital reporters who capture official electronic recordings and legal transcriptionists who transcribe and certify those recordings. It amends the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Code to treat supervised, certified digital captures and certified transcriptions as admissible and equivalent to stenographic records for many purposes.
Who It Affects
Court Reporters Board (regulatory duties and fee-setting), courts (equipment, Judicial Council approvals, staffing choices), certified shorthand reporters, prospective digital reporters and transcriptionists (training/certification pathways), parties and attorneys who obtain deposition and trial transcripts, and vendors of courtroom recording equipment.
Why It Matters
The bill modernizes the legal record infrastructure by adding regulated digital roles and a path to make electronic recordings functionally equivalent to stenographic transcripts — but it ties admissibility and court use to supervision, certification, and transcription standards, shifting where liability and quality controls will land.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1189 adds two distinct, board‑regulated occupations to California’s court‑recording ecosystem. A certified digital reporter becomes a licensed professional whose core responsibility is to capture the official electronic record: set up and monitor approved recording equipment, preserve chain of custody, alert participants to malfunctions, and swear in witnesses when necessary.
The bill builds the certification gate around minimum background checks, a high‑school-level education, and credentialing through a recognized industry certificate or an equivalent out‑of‑state license.
The companion credential is the certified legal transcriptionist, whose statutory role is narrower and focused on producing and certifying transcripts from electronic recordings. The board must issue a certificate promptly once an applicant satisfies the statutory prerequisites, and both certifications run on annual cycles with renewal rules specified by existing board procedures.
The board also gains express authority to set fees for initial certification and renewal for both tracks, limited to amounts tied to regulatory cost.On procedure and evidence, the bill rewrites several rules. For depositions, a “stenographic” recording now includes recordings produced by a certified digital reporter, and the existing rules on who pays for transcription remain in place.
The Evidence Code change makes a digitally captured transcript admissible only if the recording was made under a certified digital reporter’s supervision and the transcript was prepared by a certified digital reporter or legal transcriptionist. For court proceedings in limited civil and misdemeanor cases, courts may order electronic recording by a certified digital reporter when official reporters are unavailable, but a transcript from that recording is usable as the official transcript only if transcribed by a certified legal transcriptionist.The bill also inserts a labor protection aimed at preserving shorthand reporter jobs: it declares it an unfair labor practice for courts to fire a certified shorthand reporter and move duties to digital personnel, creating a statutory presumption tied to near‑concurrent hiring and termination.
Several technical pieces round out the proposal: retention timelines for stenographic notes remain, the Judicial Council must approve equipment for courtroom use, and certain administrative provisions place new responsibilities on the Court Reporters Board to implement and regulate the new certifications.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The digital reporter certification requires (a) age 18+, (b) no disqualifying crimes, (c) a high‑school diploma or equivalent, (d) a valid California notary public license, and (e) either an AAERT certification (or equivalent) or an out‑of‑state license with substantially similar standards.
The board must issue a legal transcriptionist certificate within 60 days of receiving a complete and accurate application from an applicant who meets statutory criteria; that certificate is valid for one year and subject to renewal under existing board rules.
Evidence Code Section 1295 makes a digitally captured transcript admissible only if the recording was captured under the supervision of a certified digital reporter and transcribed by a certified digital reporter or certified legal transcriptionist.
The Code of Civil Procedure now defines a deposition as “recorded stenographically” when recorded either by a certified shorthand reporter or by a certified digital reporter; transcription costs remain the responsibility of the noticing party unless the court orders otherwise.
The bill makes it an unfair labor practice for a court to terminate a certified shorthand reporter and shift duties to a digital reporter or legal transcriptionist, and creates a statutory presumption of violation when termination occurs within a specified (but blanked‑out) window before or after hiring the digital staff.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Unfair labor practice protecting shorthand reporters
This provision makes it unlawful for a California court to fire a certified shorthand reporter and transfer their duties to a digital reporter or legal transcriptionist. The statute establishes a rebuttable presumption that a termination occurring within a specified timeframe before or after hiring digital personnel is a violation. Practically, courts will need to document staffing decisions and timing to rebut the presumption, and human resources/legal counsel should factor this into layoff, hiring, and contracting timelines.
Fee-setting constraints for new certifications
The Court Reporters Board is directed to establish fees for initial certification and renewals for digital reporters and legal transcriptionists by regulation, but those fees may not exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of administering the programs. Existing caps for other fees remain in place and the board retains flexibility on renewal timing and waivers. This creates a limited fiscal ceiling but leaves calibration of exact fees to rulemaking.
Who qualifies as a digital reporter and what they may do
The statute lays out applicant eligibility (age, criminal background, education) and unique requirements like holding a California notary public license, and recognizes AAERT certification or substantially similar out‑of‑state licenses as qualifying credentials. Certified digital reporters may swear in witnesses, operate and monitor approved recording equipment, notify participants of malfunctions, preserve chain of custody, and capture records in depositions, hearings, and trials. The article ties certification and renewal to board procedures, creating a regulated licensing pathway for non‑stenographic record capture.
Certification and duties of transcriptionists
This article creates a certification pathway for professionals who transcribe audio/video court records and certify their accuracy for use in legal proceedings. Eligibility mirrors the digital reporter track with options for industry certification. The board must issue the certificate within 60 days for complete applications, and the holder may transcribe, review for accuracy, and certify official transcripts. Statutory authorization to charge fees for these services is also included.
Depositions: who may record stenographically
The amendment requires that, absent agreement or court order to the contrary, testimony be taken stenographically and expands that concept to include recordings by a certified digital reporter. Parties retain the ability to create audio/video records at their expense with advance notice. The change preserves existing procedural protections while permitting certified digital capture to stand in for traditional stenography for deposition‑recording purposes.
Deposition transcripts, costs, and retention
This section keeps the standard allocation that the noticing party pays for transcription but updates retention rules to accommodate electronic media. It clarifies that stenographic notes may be electronic if they reliably produce a transcript, preserves access and copy rights for other parties, and confirms that the stenographic transcript remains the official record when both stenographic and audio/video recordings exist.
Admissibility rule for digitally captured transcripts
Section 1295 conditions admissibility of a digitally captured transcript on two specific facts: the recording must have been made under the supervision of a certified digital reporter, and the transcript must have been prepared by a certified digital reporter or legal transcriptionist. That dual requirement is a compliance hinge — if either supervision or certification is missing, the transcript does not enjoy the statutory admissibility presumption.
Court use of electronic recordings and transcripts
These changes authorize courts to use certified digital reporters to create electronic recordings in limited civil and misdemeanor/infraction matters when official reporters are unavailable, but they restrict the use of transcripts derived from those recordings to ones produced by certified legal transcriptionists. The Judicial Council must approve equipment types before purchase, and recordings used for personnel monitoring are strictly limited in use and retention.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Certified digital reporters: gain a clear, state‑licensed role with defined courtroom authorities (swearing witnesses, controlling recording equipment, chain‑of‑custody responsibilities) and a regulated pathway to perform official electronic capture.
- Certified legal transcriptionists: receive statutory authority to produce and certify transcripts for court use and a fast‑track issuance timeline (60 days) that creates a recognized market role for non‑stenographic transcription.
- Courts with staffing shortages: gain a regulated alternative to stenographic reporters that can be deployed in limited civil and misdemeanor settings when official reporters are unavailable, offering operational flexibility.
- Parties and litigants seeking faster or automated records: may access transcripts produced from electronic captures that could reduce turnaround times and expand options for obtaining copies of testimony.
Who Bears the Cost
- Certified shorthand reporters: face displacement risk as non‑stenographic roles are authorized to perform many record‑keeping functions, despite the bill’s labor protection presumption that may complicate staffing changes.
- Court Reporters Board of California: must design and administer two new certification tracks, write implementing regulations for fees and renewals, and enforce new standards — all administrative burdens with attendant costs.
- Courts and local governments: will incur equipment purchase, maintenance, and Judicial Council approval processes for approved recording systems, plus training and operational changes to integrate certified digital reporters.
- Parties to litigation: remain responsible for transcription costs in many depositions and may face new billing relationships when transcription services come from certified legal transcriptionists rather than traditional reporters.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between modernizing the court record to reduce cost and increase flexibility (by allowing regulated digital capture and non‑stenographic transcription) and protecting the accuracy, reliability, and employment stability associated with traditional stenographic reporting; the bill tries to bridge both goals through supervision, certification, and a labor presumption, but those mechanisms trade clear operational gains for new regulatory complexity and potential legal uncertainty.
The bill ties admissibility and official status of electronic records to procedural safeguards — supervision by a certified digital reporter and transcription by a certified professional — but leaves several key implementation details unresolved. The statutory presumption protecting shorthand reporters references a specific timing window that is blank in the text; until that window is specified, employers, courts, and unions will lack clarity on what hiring and firing actions trigger the presumption.
The reliance on certification from the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers (AAERT) or an equivalent private standard shifts substantive gatekeeping to an industry body; the board retains authority to recognize equivalents, but rulemaking will determine how stringent and uniform those equivalents must be.
Operationally, the Judicial Council must approve equipment before courts may purchase it, creating a single choke point that could slow adoption. The requirement that transcripts derived from electronic recordings be prepared by certified legal transcriptionists limits ad hoc transcription and protects quality, but it also centralizes transcription services and could raise costs or create supply bottlenecks in jurisdictions with limited vendors.
Finally, the bill expands the statutory footprint of regulated recording and transcription activities, which could create criminal or disciplinary exposure for mistakes in supervision, chain‑of‑custody handling, or certification practices — a concern for smaller courts and private providers lacking compliance infrastructure.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.