The Court Reporter Shortage and the Future of the Record: NAEGELI Deposition and Trial Weighs In

A verbatim record rarely draws attention while it is being made. It matters later, when a party appeals or a witness remembers the testimony differently. Then the transcript is often the only neutral account of what was said.

However, the people who make that record are growing scarce. The profession is losing experienced reporters to retirement while its training pipeline stays narrow. California, which publishes detailed data on the problem, now offers a clear view of what happens when the numbers fall short.

The National Picture

In 2025, the Bureau of Labor Statistics counted about 19,900 court reporter and simultaneous captioner jobs. It projects little or no change in total employment through 2035, yet it expects about 1,800 openings each year. According to the bureau, most of those openings will come from workers who retire or move to other occupations.

Age compounds the problem. The National Court Reporters Association reports that the average age of its court reporters is 56, based on data as of March 18, 2026. Much of the profession's experience likely sits with reporters approaching retirement.

Wages are not the obvious obstacle. The median annual wage for the occupation was $72,420 in May 2025, compared with $50,980 for all occupations, according to the Bureau. A field that pays well above the median and still struggles to fill seats generally has a training problem more than a pay problem.

Why the Pipeline Is Narrow

Reporting at verbatim speed takes years to learn. Machine shorthand reporters write on a stenotype, a keyboard that records whole syllables and words in single strokes. Voice writers repeat testimony into a masked microphone connected to speech recognition software. Both methods demand accuracy at speeds that take sustained practice to reach.

California's judicial branch closely tracks the pipeline. According to the Judicial Council of California, becoming licensed typically takes three to four years. Of 294 applicants who attempted the dictation portion of the last three state exams, 52.7 percent passed.

Training capacity has shrunk as well. Only eight court reporting programs recognized by the Court Reporters Board of California remain open, down from 17 schools in 2010. The state issued 176 new licenses in fiscal year 2024 to 2025.

Meanwhile, 48.1 percent of active California licenses had been issued at least 30 years earlier as of June 3, 2026. A profession that relies that heavily on its longest serving members has little to fall back on when they retire.

The arithmetic is unforgiving. California estimates that its courts need 458 more reporters, and a year of new licenses covers well under half of that number. Private firms and courts also hire from the same small group of new licensees.

What a Missing Record Costs

California law allows electronic recording for infractions, misdemeanors, and limited civil hearings. Even there, recording is generally permitted only when a court reporter is unavailable. The law does not allow electronic recording for family law, probate, or unlimited civil proceedings.

Those excluded categories carry heavy consequences for the people involved. Between April 1, 2023, and March 31, 2026, about 3,007,651 of 4,214,365 hearings in those case types, or 71.3 percent, had no verbatim record.

The most recent quarter looked no better. From January 1 to March 31, 2026, 303,430 of 418,985 such hearings, or 72.4 percent, went without a verbatim record.

According to the Judicial Council, the gap limits people's ability to appeal child custody, paternity, and conservatorship decisions. The California Supreme Court has said that the lack of a verbatim record will frequently be fatal to an appeal on the merits. The Judicial Council cites the court's 2018 opinion in Jameson v. Desta for that point. An appellate court generally reviews the record, not the memory of those in the room.

Cost adds a second barrier. Where a court does not supply a reporter, a party who wants a record generally has to arrange and pay for one. California requires an official reporter for a civil litigant with a fee waiver who requests one when electronic recording is not available. Litigants without a waiver and without a budget for a private reporter may simply proceed without a record.

Courts Are Paying to Compete

Courts in California are hiring. Between January 1, 2023, and March 31, 2026, courts there hired 381.8 full time equivalent reporters, while 366.3 left, for a net gain of 15.5. The state estimates it needs 458 more to meet current caseload demands.

Scale makes that estimate stand out. California courts employed about 1,101 reporters as of 2026, so the estimated need equals more than 40 percent of the existing workforce.

Money is already on the table. The Judicial Council reports that court reporters are paid, on average, 51 percent more than other court staff outside management. About 91.4 percent of trial courts used at least one recruiting or retention incentive during the same period. More than three years of that effort moved the total by 15.5 positions.

Where Private Reporting Fits

Depositions happen outside the courtroom, but they draw on the same pool of trained reporters. The Judicial Council describes a tight and competitive labor market for court reporters. Freelance reporters and deposition firms are part of that same market. NAEGELI Deposition & Trial, a nationwide court reporting firm, works in that market every day.

A deposition reporter does more than take down words. The reporter generally swears in the witness, marks exhibits, reads back testimony on request, and certifies the finished transcript. That certified transcript may later support a summary judgment motion or impeach a witness at trial, so its accuracy carries real weight.

For law firms, scheduling a deposition on short notice may be harder to do. Expedited transcripts also depend on reporters with capacity to spare.

Technology has entered the conversation. Some courts rely on electronic recording where statutes allow it. Voice writers accounted for 183.5 of the 381.8 full time equivalent reporters California courts hired in that period, or about 48 percent. NAEGELI maintains that technology exists to assist the certified reporter who is responsible for the record, not to replace that person.

What the Shortage Means for Depositions

For attorneys, the practical response is mostly about lead time. A reporter is generally easier to secure when the request arrives well before the deposition date. The same is true of a videographer or an interpreter, and a deposition that needs all three has three calendars to match.

Remote and hybrid depositions widen the pool. A reporter who does not have to travel can generally cover more proceedings in a week. Parties generally confirm in advance that the governing rules allow remote administration of the oath.

NAEGELI has arranged its services around those pressures:

• Scheduling: Case managers are available around the clock at (800) 528-3335 and at schedule@naegeliusa.com.
• Remote and hybrid depositions: Participants can join from separate cities, which removes travel from the reporter's day.
• Same day rough drafts: Rough drafts are available the day of the deposition, and the certified transcript follows.
• Expedited transcripts: Certified transcripts are available on expedited schedules when a deadline is close.
• Synced video: A Certified Legal Video Specialist, or CLVS, records the testimony, and the video is synced to the transcript.
• Interpreters: Interpreters work in more than 200 languages and dialects.

The firm schedules depositions nationwide, and its offices reach from Oregon to Florida. An attorney in one state can book a reporter for a deposition in another through a single point of contact.