How Digital Recorders Will Improve Access to Justice
Like other courts across the nation, Cook County is seeing increasing numbers of self-represented parties in the courts. At the same time that litigants are finding it harder to pay for legal services, Cook County has a projected budget deficit of $152 million for 2014, which has resulted in a reduction in the number of court reporters provided in Cook County courtrooms. This presents an access to justice issue: with no court reporter at the trial court level—and no means to hire a private court reporter—many pro se litigants have no record of proceedings.
Without an acceptable record, pro se litigants have no means of verifying their understanding of prior hearings and no means of drawing the court’s attention to what happened at earlier court dates. Most importantly, without an official record, pro se litigants may be precluded from making an appeal. Without a record of proceedings, the appellate court cannot review the trial court’s actions.
Illinois Supreme Court Rules permit “bystander’s reports” to stand in place of a record where no court reporter was present. Unfortunately, court rules are rarely known to pro se litigants and can be misunderstood by people unfamiliar with the process. The rule, however, offers its own solution by permitting use of “audiotape, videotape or other recording of the proceedings” “in preparation of a bystander’s report.” Placing digital recording devices in all Cook County courtrooms facilitates compliance with the rules for bystander reports.
Digital recording devices have already been installed in some Cook County courts, beginning as a pilot program in juvenile justice courtrooms and expanding to child protection courtrooms. Audio recording has also been in place in the federal courts for years, with other states following suit to protect litigants in the absence of court reporters. In 2012, an independent Blue Ribbon Commission, formed by the Kansas Supreme Court, recommended that the Court “should. . .strongly encourage [district courts and counties] to use audio equipment in order to preserve a record in the event a court reporter is not available in the courtroom.” In Utah, all state courtrooms “are equipped with digital recording devices that store the audio and video record of proceedings on the court’s computer network. A roster of certified transcribers, composed mostly of former court reporters, now prepares timely transcripts from the digital recordings.” In fact, nearly half the states in the U.S. are transitioning from using in-person stenographic court reporters to producing the courtroom record and transcript by persons who monitor digital audio recording equipment.
Importantly, any proposal to introduce recording devices can focus on filling in the gaps—making recording devices available in those proceedings where no court reporters are available, as opposed to replacing court reporters and eliminating those jobs. Our research indicates that high-volume courtrooms with low numbers of represented parties have the greatest need, such as landlord-tenant court or parentage/domestic relations courts. Often these parties find themselves unable to appeal a ruling, even when they are able to find an attorney to assist, because there is no record of the proceedings.
Installing digital audio recording devices today would be a cost-effective step towards enhancing public confidence in the judiciary and ensuring access to justice for all. The Collaboration for Justice (Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and Chicago Council of Lawyers), with the help of pro bono partners at DLA Piper, is drafting a proposal to implement digital recording as a supplement where court reporters are unavailable to preserve the appellate rights of pro se litigants. We hope the court will give the idea careful consideration and move to improve access to justice for all.