California Assembly Bill AB1189

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/25
• Refer: 3/28/25
• Report Pass: 3/28/25
• Refer: 4/1/25
• Failed: 2/2/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 8009 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to court reporters. An act to amend Section 8031 of, to add Section 8019.5 to, and to add Article 6 (commencing with Section 8060) and Article 7 (commencing with Section 8070) to Chapter 13 of Division 3 of, the Business and Professions Code, to amend Sections 2025.330 and 2025.510 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to add Section 1295 to the Evidence Code, and to amend Section 69957 of, and to add Section 69954.5 to, the Government Code, relating to court reporting, and making an appropriation therefor.

Summary

AB 1189 would create a new regulatory framework for two additional court-reporting occupations in California: digital reporters and legal transcriptionists. It would authorize the Court Reporters Board of California to certify and regulate both professions, set application and renewal requirements, and establish fees. Digital reporters would be allowed to swear in witnesses, operate and supervise digital recording equipment, maintain chain of custody of the record, and capture proceedings such as depositions, hearings, and trials. Legal transcriptionists would be authorized to transcribe audio and video recordings and certify transcripts for use in legal proceedings. The bill also updates several court and evidence statutes to recognize these new roles. In civil discovery, depositions could be recorded stenographically by either a certified shorthand reporter or a certified digital reporter. In certain court settings where an official reporter is unavailable, proceedings could be electronically recorded by a certified digital reporter, and transcripts from those recordings could be used if prepared by a certified legal transcriptionist. The bill further adds an Evidence Code provision making digitally captured transcripts admissible if they were supervised by a digital reporter and transcribed by a digital reporter or legal transcriptionist. It also requires the board to set fees and directs some fee revenue to the Transcript Reimbursement Fund. AB 1189 would also add labor protections for existing court-employed shorthand reporters. It would make it an unfair labor practice for a court to terminate a certified shorthand reporter and shift those duties to a digital reporter or legal transcriptionist, and it creates a presumption of a violation if a shorthand reporter is terminated within a specified period before or after such hiring. The bill includes a statement that no state reimbursement is required and notes that it expands the scope of existing crimes, which would make it a state-mandated local program. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of expanding court-reporting options and modernizing the record-keeping process, while also trying to preserve existing shorthand reporter jobs. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, but the structure of the bill suggests an attempt to balance access, technology adoption, and workforce protection. The presence of the labor-practice prohibition indicates that job displacement concerns are a central policy issue. The main point of contention is likely the impact on certified shorthand reporters and court reporter employment. Supporters would likely emphasize flexibility, staffing alternatives, and the ability to keep proceedings moving when official reporters are unavailable. Opponents or concerned stakeholders may focus on whether digital reporting is sufficiently reliable, whether the new certification standards are appropriate, and whether the bill could undermine existing court reporter jobs despite the anti-displacement language. The bill also raises implementation questions for courts, the Court Reporters Board, and parties in civil and criminal proceedings.

Impact

AB 1189 would amend the Business and Professions Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Evidence Code, and Government Code to recognize and regulate digital reporters and legal transcriptionists alongside certified shorthand reporters. It would expand the Court Reporters Board’s authority, create new certification categories, authorize new duties for those professionals, and change the rules governing depositions, court recordings, transcript admissibility, and limited-civil/misdemeanor recording practices. It would also create new fee authority and a continuously appropriated funding mechanism tied to transcript reimbursement, while adding an unfair labor practice restriction affecting court employment decisions.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally favorable toward modernization of court reporting and the use of digital recording/transcription, but it also reflects caution about protecting existing shorthand reporter positions. No votes or committee testimony are provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure directly. Based on the bill’s structure, the proposal seems designed to appeal to both access/efficiency advocates and labor-protection concerns, suggesting a mixed but constructive policy posture rather than a purely partisan or oppositional one.

Contention

The most notable contention is the potential displacement of certified shorthand reporters by digital reporters and legal transcriptionists. The bill directly addresses that concern by prohibiting courts from terminating shorthand reporters and shifting their duties, and by creating a presumption of a violation around hiring and termination timing. Another likely point of debate is whether digital recordings and transcripts should carry the same legal reliability and evidentiary status as traditional stenographic records. Courts, reporters, and litigants may also dispute certification standards, fee levels, and whether the new system will improve access without reducing quality or undermining existing professional roles.