A litigation boutique based in Oakland, California, representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex civil litigation.
Norton Law Firm Participates as Amicus Counsel in Unanimous California Supreme Court Decision on Meaningful Appellate Review
On August 10, 2026, the California Supreme Court unanimously granted the petition for writ of mandate in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (S288176), an important decision protecting equal access to justice and meaningful appellate review.
The Norton Law Firm PC represents a distinguished coalition of law professors who filed an amicus brief supporting petitioners Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP) and Bay Area Legal Aid. The brief was filed on behalf of prominent legal scholars from institutions including Yale Law School, UC Berkeley Law, Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, and others nationwide. Partner Josephine Petrick, a California State Bar-Certified Appellate Specialist, served as lead counsel on the brief.
The case addressed California’s prohibition on electronically recording certain court proceedings, a restriction that has disproportionately affected low-income litigants who cannot afford private court reporters. Each year, more than one million hearings take place in California’s trial courts without a verbatim transcript due to the combined effect of a court reporter shortage and statutory restrictions on electronic recording. Without an adequate record, litigants can be deprived of meaningful appellate review.
As the Court concluded:
“In sum, courts have a ministerial duty under Jameson and the in forma pauperis doctrine to provide indigent litigants, upon request, with meaningful access in all cases to an official verbatim record of proceedings, including by means of electronic recording if an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore is unavailable. Because the respondent courts have not complied with this ministerial duty, we issue a writ of mandate directing them to do so.” (Opn. at pp. 34–35.)
“This is an excellent result for access to justice in California,” said Petrick. “An adequate record is essential to meaningful appellate review. The Court’s unanimous decision ensures that low-income litigants who cannot afford a private court reporter will not lose that protection simply because an official reporter is unavailable.”
The Court recognized a premise consistent with the law professors’ brief: “Although this court has never held that a civil litigant has a right to an official verbatim record of trial court proceedings, the general availability of such a record is presupposed under California law.” (Opn. at p. 24.) The brief argued that California superior courts’ constitutional status as “courts of record” requires accurate and contemporaneous verbatim records of court proceedings. The Court’s narrow opinion left open that broader constitutional question, as well as due process and equal protection questions the petition raised.
The Court traced California’s statutory commitment to recording trial court proceedings back to 1861 and emphasized the central role an adequate record plays in meaningful appellate review. It also expressly left open future consideration of the constitutional issues in an appropriate case.
The unanimous decision provides an important practical remedy for indigent litigants across California while advancing principles at the heart of the law professors’ amicus brief: accurate court records promote transparency, accountability, and the fair administration of justice.