An act to amend Section 8020.5 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Section 69959.5 of the Government Code, relating to court reporters, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
AB 2783 makes two main changes to California law governing court reporters. First, it expands the qualifications for licensure by allowing applicants who have earned the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) certification from the National Court Reporters Association to satisfy the dictation/transcription portion of the state licensing exam, alongside the existing CVR and CVR-S certifications. Applicants using that certification would still need to pass the English and Professional Practice portions of the exam within the existing three-year window.
Second, the bill extends and modifies California’s remote court reporting pilot program. It authorizes specified superior courts to continue testing remote court reporting, where a stenographic reporter records proceedings from a separate location via audiovisual transmission, and extends the pilot’s termination date to no later than July 1, 2028, with the statute repealed on January 1, 2029. The bill also requires additional reporting from the superior courts in Los Angeles, Mendocino, San Bernardino, San Mateo, and Tulare, and directs the Judicial Council to compile and submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2027. The measure is an urgency statute, so it would take effect immediately.
AB 2783 amends Business and Professions Code Section 8020.5 and Government Code Section 69959.5. It broadens the pool of applicants who can qualify for court reporter licensure through national certification, which may ease entry into the profession for some candidates. It also prolongs and refines the remote court reporting pilot framework for participating superior courts, including requirements on staffing, equipment, case types, labor protections, and data collection. The bill affects the Court Reporters Board of California, participating superior courts, the Judicial Council, court reporters, and court users in the counties authorized to participate in the pilot.
The bill appears to have been received positively in committee and on the floor, with unanimous recorded support in the available vote history. The committee vote was 12-0 for do pass as amended, and the bill was re-referred to Appropriations with no recorded opposition. The urgency clause suggests lawmakers viewed the extension of the pilot and licensing change as time-sensitive and necessary to avoid a gap in court reporting services.
The main policy issues are not reflected in recorded opposition, but the bill’s structure shows the likely areas of concern. Remote court reporting raises questions about technology reliability, audibility, courtroom access, and whether proceedings could be prejudiced; the bill addresses these by requiring equipment standards, limiting participation, protecting reporters from retaliation, and allowing courts to end a pilot early if justice is affected. Another point of interest is labor and professional standards, since the bill preserves treatment of participating reporters as official court employees and expands licensure pathways by recognizing an additional national certification.