Everyone is watching Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (S288176) to see if the California Supreme Court is going to strike down the ban on electronic recording of court proceedings. There is a steady drumbeat in favor, including the Los Angeles County Superior Court and other courts.

But are we missing a perspective?

Stephanie Leslie is the immediate past president of the California Deposition Reporters Association and co-founder of Regal Court Reporting. She explains why certified shorthand reporters remain the gold standard for the verbatim record—and why replacing them with electronic recording could be a mistake.

• Yes, we all want to solve the court-reporter shortage.
• But the short-term gain of using electronic recordings could reverse a recent uptick of new CSR entrants.

The way forward, Stephanie argues, is continuing to invest in recruitment and training.

And recent AI pressures are sparking new interest in court-reporting.

Also, AI and electronic recording still struggle with minority accents, overlapping speakers, and courtroom noise. Even federal courts with state-of-the-art equipment produce transcripts filled with "inaudibles" and misattributed speakers because no human was present to stop the proceeding and clarify the record.

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why the court reporter shortage was caused by budget cuts, not by the profession
• How voice writers are replenishing the pipeline faster than traditional stenographers
• Why AI transcription still fails in real courtrooms with accents, noise, and overlapping speakers
• Resource misallocation: multiple reporters sitting idle in the same courtroom
• Best practices for attorneys to secure reporters and get clean transcripts

What experiences can you share about using an electronic recording to create a transcript?

The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye led the state judiciary through the Great Recession's budget crisis, bail reform advocacy, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Now she has three new roles: President and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, a neutral at ADR Services, and a founding voice of the Alliance of Former Chief Justices.

CJ Cantil-Sakauye talks with Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis about what actually gets petitions for review granted. If the Supreme Court’s job is not to correct errors, then what is it?

• The justices look for issues that surface conflict, systemic mischief, or other need to weigh in to avoid broader problems.
• So how do you find those issues? Each justice has a mental list—sometimes those are visible in their concurrences and dissents.
• Other places to look: amicus briefs from government entities.

CJ Cantil-Sakauye also addresses why her Court viewed depublication as heavy-handed and preferred granting review to provide legal explanation

And why grant-and-transfer requires diplomatic restraint to avoid appearing to rebuke Court of Appeal colleagues.

We also discuss:

• Why rescue missions almost always fail
• Why Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye's court limited depublication to the rarest circumstances and changed the rules to keep granted cases citable
• The mediation stumbling blocks she encounters when trial counsel defends the trial record instead of negotiating settlement
• How COVID permanently transformed access to justice through electronic filing and remote appearances
• The structural tension created by California's legislative control over civil procedure, unlike most states where supreme courts govern procedural rules

What’s the biggest factor you think makes the California Supreme Court take a case?

In addition to having more than 100 published opinions and close to 100 oral arguments to his name, Jeremy B. Rosen is the managing partner of the Horvitz & Levy LLP San Francisco office. Jeremy is also nationally recognized for his First Amendment and anti-SLAPP work. Jeremy joins Jeff and Tim on the California Appellate Law Podcast to discuss:

• How does Horvitz & Levy sustain a practice that produces hundreds of high-quality appellate briefs annually while maintaining a clear institutional philosophy on drafting, editing, and oral advocacy?
• Part of the answer: Jeremy explains the firm's two-person brief model: one lead lawyer reads the full record and does the primary drafting, while a supervising lawyer provides strategy and heavy editing.
• Another part of the answer: Avoid committee-style drafting, common at large firms. This often produces briefs that lack a coherent voice.
• Who argues the case? Jeremy shares the firm's strong preference that the lawyer who drafted the brief should argue the case—not a senior partner brought in for name recognition.
• How to prepare for oral argument? Jeremy shares how he prepares “modules” for each topic so he is ready for wherever the panel wants to go.
• Oral argument strategy: If the bench is cold and asks no questions, speak for two or three minutes and sit down.
• Jeremy also discusses the responsible use of AI in appellate practice, noting that he now uses it to generate oral argument questions and sharpen briefs, but warns that he has already handled two appeals involving AI-generated false citations filed by opposing counsel.
• How to prepare for an oral argument when you inherit someone else's brief.
• The responsible use of AI in editing briefs and the dangers of relying on it without verification.
• Why a federal anti-SLAPP statute has stalled despite bipartisan support.

How do you collaborate on appellate briefs and oral argument prep in your shop?