Family Violence Appellate Project: An Access-to-Justice Decision with Major San Diego Consequences
Germani Law
A right to appeal has limited value if a litigant cannot obtain a record of what happened in court. In Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts of California, Counties of Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Diego,[1] the California Supreme Court held that a qualifying indigent civil litigant who timely requests an official verbatim record cannot be left without a meaningful official record merely because the litigant cannot afford a private court reporter and no court reporter is available.
The decision is a substantial access-to-justice development. California appellate courts generally presume trial court rulings are correct, and an appellant must show error based on the appellate record. Without a verbatim record, a party may be unable to challenge testimony, evidentiary rulings, credibility determinations, factual findings, or the court’s oral reasoning.
The Court built on Jameson v. Desta, which held that when paying litigants may bring private reporters, superior courts must ensure access to a verbatim record for qualifying fee-waiver litigants. Family Violence Appellate Projectaddressed the practical failure that can occur when an indigent litigant properly requests a reporter but the court cannot provide one.
The Supreme Court held that courts have a ministerial duty to provide qualifying indigent litigants meaningful access to an official verbatim record. If an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore is unavailable, the court must authorize electronic recording when reasonably necessary to provide that record.
Electronic recording is not a general replacement for certified shorthand reporting, and the case does not give every party a right to choose electronic recording. A court should use an official reporter when one is available. But when reporter unavailability would otherwise deprive a qualifying indigent litigant of an official record, the court may not simply proceed without one.
The decision is particularly important in San Diego. The Superior Court of San Diego County was among the respondent courts named in the statewide writ proceeding. The Supreme Court discussed evidence that official reporters were not normally available in many San Diego civil, family law, and probate proceedings. It also described evidence that qualifying low-income litigants who requested reporters sometimes faced a choice between continuances lasting months or proceeding without a record.
The Court noted evidence from a Legal Aid Society of San Diego attorney that more than half of the organization’s clients who requested a reporter but could not obtain one chose to proceed without one. That evidence helps explain why the Court treated the reporter shortage as an access-to-justice problem rather than merely an administrative or staffing problem.
Although the case arose from the work of organizations representing domestic-violence survivors and other low-income clients, the rule is not confined to domestic-violence, family law, or probate cases. It applies broadly in civil proceedings when a qualifying indigent litigant timely requests an official verbatim record and no official reporter or official reporter pro tempore is available.
For San Diego lawyers, the lesson is practical: assess the need for a record before the hearing. When a client has a fee waiver or otherwise cannot afford a private reporter, make a timely request for an official record and confirm reporter availability. If no reporter is available, Family Violence Appellate Project provides authority to request the court’s authorized means of creating an official verbatim record, including electronic recording when reasonably necessary.
Stephanie S. Germani, Esq. practices landlord-tenant law throughout California. She believes access to justice includes not only getting into court, but also having a meaningful opportunity to preserve and challenge what happens there.
[1] Family Violence Appellate Project and Bay Area Legal Aid, Petitioners, v. Superior Courts of California, Counties of Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Diego, Respondents. Legislature of the State of California, Real Party In Interest., 2025 WL 4790878
