BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Version: May 31, 2016
Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Court reporters
DESCRIPTION
This bill would incrementally increase the fees that court
reporters can charge for transcripts, and copies thereof, over
the next five years, as specified.
BACKGROUND
The Court Reporters Board of California is charged with
certifying and regulating shorthand reporters, who perform a
vital function for the courts and litigants in providing
official, verbatim records of a variety of proceedings. (See
Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8017.) The importance of this
transcription function, by such licensed individuals, is
reflected in California law, which requires that an official
reporter or official reporter pro tempore of the superior court
take down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings
of the court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences,
arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and statements and
remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other
judicial officer, in specified cases. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
269.) Existing law also provides that the report of the
official reporter, or the official reporter pro tempore, of any
court, duly appointed and sworn, when transcribed and certified
as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings
in the case, is prima facie evidence of the testimony and
proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 273(a).)
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 2 of ?
Since 1981, the board has been charged with administering the
Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF), fully supported by an
augmentation in the licensing fees imposed upon certified
shorthand reporters. The purpose of the TRF is to ensure that
low-income litigants in civil cases are able to afford
deposition and court transcripts by reimbursing eligible
applicants or certified shorthand reporters for the cost of
preparing an original transcript and/or copy of a California
state court or deposition proceeding. Attorneys for indigent
litigants apply to the Fund for payments to be made to court
reporters for their work in preparing court and deposition
transcripts in their cases. With this Fund in existence,
low-income individuals are afforded access to services that
might otherwise be unavailable. When established, the program
was scheduled for sunset on June 30, 1986. Since then the sunset
has been extended several times, most recently to January 1,
2017. Notably, the TRF consists of a Pro Bono program and a Pro
Per Program, both of which ensure indigent litigants have access
to court reporting transcripts for civil cases. In January 1,
2011, recognizing that the TRF has historically been
underutilized by indigent litigants represented by pro bono
attorneys or qualified non-profit entities, the Pro Per Program
was implemented as a pilot project in order to maximize the
benefits of the TRF and expand access to justice to those most
in need. The pilot project ran through January 1, 2013, and was
capped at $30,000 per calendar year, with a $1,500 cap per case.
This project is also scheduled to be repealed on January 1,
2017, unless legislation extends that date. Under the TRF
programs, the Board has paid more than $8.5 million to licensed
reporters. (See Senate Committee on Business, Professions and
Economic Development and Assembly Committee on Business and
Professions, Background Paper for the Court Reporters Board
(Mar. 9, 2016)
p. 2 [as of Jun. 15, 2016].)
Under California law, the fees that a court reporter may charge
in connection with transcripts are set by statute. Those fees
have not been raised since they were last increased to their
current rates in 1990 by SB 2376 (Presley, Ch. 505, Stats 1990).
There was an attempt to do so in 2006 by AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006),
which would have not only raised the fee, but it would have
changed it from a fee per 100 words (known as a folio rate) to a
per page rate. Under that proposed fee structure, the original
transcript at $3.57 per page, with the cost of additional copies
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 3 of ?
set at $0.63 per page. That bill died without a hearing in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee. Most recently, AB 582 (Evans,
2007) would have also changed the transcript fee from a folio
rate to a per page rate. AB 582 proposed to set the fee for the
original printed court transcript to $2.93 per page; the fee for
each copy purchased at the same time as the original transcript
by a court, party, or other person $0.52 per page; the fee for a
first copy of the transcript to a court, party, or other person
who does not simultaneously purchase the original $0.69 per
page; and the fee for each additional copy purchased at the same
time $0.52 per page. That bill would have also provided that
from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, inclusive, and on and after
July 1, 2011, these costs shall increase in an unspecified
amount. On or after June 30, 2011, and every June 30
thereafter, the bill would have required that these costs to be
increased according to the cumulative increase in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as specified. Ultimately,
AB 582 was gutted and amended into another topic and died in
this Committee without a hearing.
AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006), would have changed the transcript fee
from a folio rate to a per page rate and set the fee for the
original transcript at $3.57 per page, with the cost of
additional copies set at $0.63 per page. That bill died without
a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
This bill seeks to increase the transcript fees that may be
charged by court reporters for the first time since legislation
was over 25 years ago, setting the current rates.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes the California Court Reporters Board
(CRB) with, among other things, the authority and responsibility
to determine the qualifications of persons applying for
certification as a shorthand reporter; make rules for the
examination of applicants and the issuing of certificates of
qualification in professional shorthand reporting; investigate
the actions of any licensee, upon receipt of a verified
complaint in writing from any person, for alleged acts or
omissions constituting grounds for disciplinary action, as
specified; and charge and collect authorized fees. (Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 8000 et seq.; see Bus. & Prof. Code Secs.
8007(a), (c); 8008(c); 8000(f); 8031.)
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 4 of ?
Existing law establishes the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (TRF)
for the purpose of providing shorthand reporting services to
low-income litigants in civil cases who are unable to otherwise
afford those services. More specifically, existing law requires
funds generated by court reporter licensing fees, in excess of
funds needed to support the CRB's operating budget, to be used
by the CRB for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the
TRF. The TRF will sunset on January 1, 2017, unless another
statute is enacted before that date to delete or extend the
sunset date. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8030.2.)
Existing law authorizes a person appearing pro se at any stage
of the case to apply to receive assistance with transcription
costs from the Fund, subject to a limit of $1,500 per case and
not to exceed $30,000 annually for all cases. This provision
will sunset on January 1, 2017, unless another statute is
enacted before that date to delete or extend the sunset date.
(Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 8030.5.)
Existing law specifies the following transcript-related fees:
the fee for transcription for the original copy is $0.85 for
each 100 words (also known as the "folio rate");
the fee for each copy purchased at the same time by the court,
party, or other person purchasing the original is $0.15 per
100 words; and
the fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person
who does not simultaneously purchase the original is $0.20 per
100 words, and $0.15 for each additional copy purchased at the
same time. (Gov. Code Sec. 69950(a).)
Existing law provides that, notwithstanding the above, if a
local trial court had established transcription fees in effect
on January 1, 2012, based on an estimate as to the number of
words or folios on a typical transcript page, those
transcription fees shall be the transcription fees for
proceedings in those trial courts, and the policy or practice
for determining transcription fees in those trial courts shall
not be unilaterally changed. (Gov. Code Sec. 69950(b).)
This bill would, instead, provide that the fee for transcription
for the original printed copy, which reflects an amount assessed
for each 100 words will be charged as follows:
from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.93 per 100
words (an increase from $0.85);
from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $1.03 per 100
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 5 of ?
words; and
beginning January 1, 2021: $1.13 per 100 words.
This bill would provide that the fee for each copy purchased at
the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing
the original will be charged as follows:
from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.17 per 100
words (an increase from $0.15);
from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.20 per 100
words; and
beginning January 1, 2021: $0.22 per 100 words.
This bill would provide that the fee for a first copy to any
court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously
purchase the original will be charged as follows:
from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018: $0.23 per 100
words (an increase from $0.20), and $0.17 for each additional
copy purchased at the same time;
from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020: $0.26 per 100
words, and $0.20 for each additional copy purchased at the
same time; and
beginning January 1, 2021: $0.29 per 100 words, and $0.22 for
each additional copy purchased at the same time.
This bill would provide that the fee for transcription is an
additional 50 percent for special daily copy service, whereas
existing law provides that: for transcription, in civil cases,
the court reporter may charge an additional 50 percent for
special daily copy service.
This bill would include specified findings and declarations:
official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore
employed by the courts are currently paid under a dual
compensation structure in which the base salary of the court
reporter is supplemented by income from preparing required
transcripts and providing other required transcription
services;
the dual compensation structure protects the state from
bearing the full cost of transcript preparation and other
transcription services and avoids the resulting consequences
of overtime liability related to these services;
the fees for original transcripts prepared by official court
reporters and court reporters pro tempore have not been
adjusted in 26 years, and fees for copies purchased at the
same time as the original transcript have only increased once
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 6 of ?
in 103 years; and
in order to ensure full and fair compensation of official
court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by
the court, and in order to attract and retain official court
reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the
courts that have sufficient skills and competence to serve the
needs of the justice system, it is imperative that the system
of dual compensation provide sufficient payment for
transcription services.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
California has not adjusted the court transcript fee collected
by court reporters since 1990. Court reporters employed by
the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation
structure in which the base salary of a court reporter is
supplemented by the income from preparing required transcripts
and providing other required transcription services. The dual
compensation structure protects the state from bearing the
full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription
services. This avoids the resulting consequences of overtime
liability related to these services.
In order to bring parity and fair compensation for court
reporters, this bill advances a modest transcript fee
adjustment. This will ensure the system of dual compensation
is up to date in providing sufficient payment for
transcription services.
The author provides a chart of the proposed fee adjustment:
-----------------------------------------------------------
| |2016 |2017-2018 |2019-2020 |2021 |
|------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------|
|Original printed |$0.85 |$0.93 |$1.03 |$1.13 |
|copy. | | | | |
|------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------|
|Copy purchased at |$0.15 |$0.17 |$0.20 |$0.22 |
|same time as | | | | |
|original. | | | | |
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 7 of ?
|------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------|
|First copy |$0.20 |$0.23 |$0.26 |$0.29 |
|without | | | | |
|simultaneously | | | | |
|purchasing the | | | | |
|original. | | | | |
|------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------|
|Each copy |$0.15 |$0.17 |$0.20 |$0.22 |
|purchased without | | | | |
|simultaneously | | | | |
|purchasing the | | | | |
|original. | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed fee adjustment does not seem unreasonable
This bill proposes to adjust the schedule of fees for
transcripts for the first time in 25 years. The current
transcript fee was set in 1991, when it was increased $0.10
(from $0.70 to $0.85 per 100 words) for the first copy, and
$0.05 (from $0.10 to $0.15 per 100 words) for each additional
copy ordered at the same time as the original. (SB 2376
(Presley, Ch. 505, Stats. 1990.) Obviously, costs have only
increased since then, and fees should arguably be adjusted
accordingly.
This bill proposes a new schedule whereby the fee for the
original transcript per 100 words would be raised incrementally,
no more than $0.10 in any two year period, as follows:
A total of $0.08 (from $0.85 to $0.93) for 2017-18;
An additional $0.10 (from $0.93 to $1.03) for 2019-20; and
An additional $0.10 (from $1.03 to $1.13) for January 1, 2021
and thereafter.
During those same time periods, the fee per 100 words will be
raised for each copy purchased at the same time as the original
transcript as follows: $0.02 (from $0.15 currently, to $0.17)
for 2019-20; $0.03 ($0.17 to $0.20) in 2017-18; and an
additional $0.02 to $0.22 from January 1, 2021 and on.
The bill similarly proposes to incrementally increase (between
$0.02 and $0.03 each time), over five years, the fees for the
first copy purchased by any court, party, or other person who
does not simultaneously purchase the original, and for each
additional copy, purchased at the same time as that first copy,
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 8 of ?
as follows:
in 2017-18: the fee for a first copy purchased without the
original transcript will be raised from $0.20 to $0.23 for
each 100 words, and the fee for any additional copies
purchased at the same time will be raised from $0.15,
currently, to $0.17 per 100 words;
in 2019-20: the fee for a first copy purchased without the
original transcript will be raised to $0.26 per 100 words, and
the fee for any additional copies purchased at the same time
will be raised to $0.20 per 100 words; and
from January 1, 2021 and thereafter: the fee for the first
copy purchased without the original transcript will be raised
to $0.29 per 100 words, while additional copies purchased at
the same time will be raised to $0.22 per 100 words.
Staff notes that, looking simply at the base fee per 100 words
for the original transcript, that fee of $0.85, as set in 1991,
holds the same buying power as $1.49 in 2016, if adjusted for
inflation. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation
Calculator
[as of Jun. 15, 2016].) This bill, however, suggests a
reasonable $0.08 increase for the years 2017-18 after more than
25 years. The last time these fees were increased, they were
raised $0.05 from the prior rate of $0.80, which had been set in
1986. (See Sen. Judiciary Com. analysis of SB 2376 (1989-1990
Reg. Session) Apr. 3, 1990, p. 3.)
The sponsor, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA),
writes that court reporter transcripts "are vital to the
delivery of justice in California. Parties regularly rely on
court records to prepare for future hearings, explore potential
legal theories, as well as, ensure compliance with statutory and
constitutional requirements. In essence, an official transcript
is used both to enable parties to fully exercise their legal
rights and to provide some level of accountability of our
judicial process." CCRA explains that court reporters spend
thousands of dollars to purchase their own equipment and
frequently pay out of pocket for continuing education courses as
well as other ongoing costs. Their profession is "subject to a
dual compensation structure. The hours we work at the
courthouse are paid for through a traditional employee wage or
salary model. However, whenever an official transcript must be
produced, we are required to spend evenings and weekends doing
the work. This is uncompensated through salary or wages."
Instead, their work is compensated by the statutory transcript
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 9 of ?
fee, which has not "been updated since 1991, falling far behind
the rate of inflation. AB 2629 will address this outdated fix
rate fee by implementing a modest increase that still lags
behind 100 [percent] of inflation. However, this update will
help ensure that court reporters are reasonably compensated."
3. Oppose unless amended and funded
In opposition, the Judicial Council writes, in part:
As originally drafted, AB 2629 would have created statewide
consistency in the cost of court reporters' transcripts. Each
county would have been subject to the same increase in costs,
allowing the branch as a whole to effectively attempt to
predict the costs, and consequently, to plan and budget for
them. The reintroduction of paragraph (c) [of existing law]
in each subsequent version of Government Code section 69950
eliminates this consistency and reinstates the current,
county-by-county negotiated transcript rates that have
hampered statewide budgeting efforts. As the judicial branch
has moved to a statewide funding model, this anachronistic
hodgepodge of transcript rates has hampered attempts to
effectively and consistently predict budget outlays and
requirements. Should AB 2629 pass and become law, thereby
increasing the transcript fees statewide, it is a perfect
opportunity to allow for the consistent budgetary
predictability that statewide funding requires.
Because the Judicial Council is concerned with the fiscal
impact the bill will have on the branch [ . . . ] the council
also opposes AB 2629 unless funding for the increased cost for
transcripts is provided. As an alternative to an
appropriation in the bill itself, the council could withdraw
its opposition if the implementation of the transcript fee
increases are made contingent upon an appropriation in the
annual budget act. [ . . . ]
Support : Alameda County Official Court Reporters Association;
Butte County Superior Court Reporters; Contra Costa Superior
Court Reporters; Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association;
Marin County Superior Court Reporters; Northern California Court
Reporters Association; Orange County Superior Court Reporters
Association; Sacramento Official Court Reporters Association;
San Diego Superior Court Reporters Association; Service
AB 2629 (Roger Hernández)
Page 10 of ?
Employees International Union California; Tulare County Superior
Court Reporters
Opposition : Judicial Council
HISTORY
Source : California Court Reporters Association
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 582 (Evans, 2007) See Background. Like this bill, AB 582
would have further provided that the fee for transcription is an
additional 50 percent for the special daily copy service.
AB 2305 (Klehs, 2006) See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 52, Noes 26)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 2)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 1)
**************