Family Violence Appellate Project v. Super. Ct.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY et al., Respondents. S288176 August 10, 2026 Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Lie* concurred. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT S288176 Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609 (Jameson).) An adequate record commonly includes a reporter’s transcript of any oral proceedings that occur in the trial court. Historically, California courts employed certified shorthand reporters as official court reporters, who prepared an official verbatim record of oral proceedings that could be used to prepare a reporter’s transcript for use on appeal. In recent years, however, many courts have not employed sufficient reporters to cover all proceedings. The causes of this shortfall are complex and disputed, but its effects are not. As we have recognized, “the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court.” (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 608.) A litigant with ample financial resources may be able to hire a private court reporter, who will create an official verbatim record of the proceedings as an official reporter pro tempore. 1  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. But this option is unavailable to many, perhaps even most, individual litigants. Recognizing the unfairness of this wealth- based disparity, this court held in Jameson that trial courts have an obligation to provide an official reporter upon request to indigent litigants who cannot afford to pay a private court reporter. In other words, “when a superior court adopts a general policy under which official court reporters are not made available in civil cases but parties who can afford to pay for a private court reporter are permitted to do so, the superior court must include in its policy an exception for fee waiver recipients that assures such litigants the availability of a verbatim record of the trial court proceedings.” (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 623.) Jameson grounded this obligation in the ancient and inherent power of the courts to facilitate meaningful access to the judicial process for indigent litigants under the in forma pauperis doctrine. (Ibid.) While Jameson guaranteed that indigent litigants would have access to an official verbatim record of trial court proceedings, notwithstanding their inability to afford a private court reporter, this guarantee has proven illusory. Many courts throughout California do not employ sufficient court reporters to comply with their obligations under Jameson, such that an indigent litigant who requests an official court reporter often appears in court and finds that no official court reporter is present. The indigent litigant must either accept a continuance of the scheduled proceeding or consent to go forward without the means to create an official verbatim record. Both options are unpalatable. A continuance necessarily delays the litigant’s pursuit of justice, the need for which may be urgent. Going forward without a means to create an official verbatim record 2  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. renders many trial court errors unreviewable, and hence uncorrectable, on appeal. As a technical matter, the services of a court reporter are not necessary to create an accurate and reliable verbatim record of trial court proceedings. For many decades, it has been possible — and relatively straightforward — to create an audio recording of these proceedings. Indeed, electronic audio recording is commonly used in federal courts and many state courts to create an official verbatim record of trial court proceedings. In California, however, a statute appears to severely restrict the use of electronic audio recording to create an official verbatim record. Government Code1 section 69957 authorizes a court to use electronic recording in limited civil, misdemeanor, and infraction cases if an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore is unavailable. (Id., subd. (a).) But it prohibits the use of electronic recording to make an official or unofficial record in any other case, including unlimited civil cases. (Ibid.) As a result, under the statute, courts may not use electronic recording, even when a court reporter is unavailable, to create an official verbatim record in a wide variety of important matters, including as relevant here proceedings involving domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, child custody and support, marital relations, debt collection, employment and housing discrimination, official misconduct, and probate conservatorship and guardianship. 1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified. 3  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. Petitioners Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP) and Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) represent indigent and low- income litigants in trial and appellate proceedings. In this case, they allege that their clients frequently appear in court and find that an official court reporter is unavailable, even when they have made a request under Jameson. Petitioners contend that, notwithstanding the broad language of section 69957, courts have the power to imply an exception to the statute and use electronic recording to create an official verbatim record, if an official court reporter is unavailable, under the in forma pauperis doctrine discussed in Jameson and under broader constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and separation of powers. As noted, under the in forma pauperis doctrine, courts have the inherent power and obligation to facilitate meaningful access to justice for indigent litigants. In Jameson, we held that meaningful access to justice included access to an official verbatim record of trial court proceedings. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 623 [court policies must “assure[] such litigants the availability of a verbatim record of the trial court proceedings”].) Without an official verbatim record, indigent litigants are deprived of “equal access to the appellate process” and are placed “at a significant disadvantage with respect to their right of appeal compared to those litigants who can afford to pay for a private shorthand reporter.” (Id. at pp. 622, 623.) We recognized in Jameson that, “under current statutes,” access to an official verbatim record “require[d] the presence of an official court reporter,” and we limited the scope of a trial court’s obligation accordingly. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 623.) But the undisputed facts in this proceeding show that the Jameson obligation is insufficient to afford indigent litigants 4  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. meaningful access to justice and an official verbatim record. Courts may therefore “devis[e] alternative procedures . . . so that indigent litigants are not, as a practical matter, denied their day in court.” (Id. at p. 605.) These alternative procedures include electronic recording. Although section 69957 contains a broad prohibition on the use of electronic recording in most civil cases, it does not specifically forbid using such recording where necessary to ensure an indigent litigant has meaningful access to justice. Thus, like many other statutes that “do not themselves contain an exception for needy litigants” (Jameson, at p. 605), courts can and should imply an exception to section 69957 where reasonably necessary to provide indigent civil litigants with meaningful access to justice and an official verbatim record. In this context, given the significant cost of hiring a private court reporter, we do not imply some absolute standard of indigency. Instead, any litigant who cannot afford to pay a private reporter may apply to proceed in forma pauperis and qualify as indigent for this purpose. (See fn. 3, post.) Because the respondent superior courts do not in all cases provide civil litigants who cannot afford to hire a private court reporter with some means of obtaining an official verbatim record of proceedings, thereby depriving these litigants of meaningful access to the appellate process, the courts fail to fulfill their duty under the in forma pauperis doctrine to facilitate equal access to justice for these litigants. We therefore issue a writ of mandate directing them to do so. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, we explained, by way of background, “Prior to the drastic cuts in judicial budgets over the last decade, superior courts in California generally made official court reporters 5  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. routinely available for civil trials. As a result of budget reductions, however, many, but not all, of the superior courts throughout the state have adopted new policies limiting the availability of official court reporters to only a narrow category of civil cases, which generally do not include ordinary contract, personal injury, or professional negligence cases.” (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 610.) Since then, petitioners allege, the situation has only worsened: “On November 14, 2024, the California Access to Justice Commission released an Issue Paper on Access to the Record of California Trial Court Proceedings (AJC Report), in which it reported, for the year ending March 31, 2024, ‘over one million hearings and trials took place in unlimited civil, family, and probate cases — for which California Superior Courts did not provide any means to create an official transcript.’ [Citation.] The Commission estimated that ‘litigants in over 70% of proceedings in the three categories . . . had no access to an official transcript.’ ” (Boldface and italics omitted.) In January 2023, respondent Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a general order informing the public that official court reporters will not normally be available in unlimited civil cases, family law cases, or probate cases. The general order stated that, “[t]o the extent available,” the court “may provide official court reporters in dedicated restraining order courts and domestic violence hearings, one day a week in all other family law courts, and in probate courts, as determined by judicial officers.” Indigent litigants could still request the presence of an official court reporter at no cost, but the general order contemplated that such requests may not always be honored: “The clerk will notify the requestor as soon as possible if an official court reporter will not be available on the date of 6  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. the hearing as scheduled. Given the limited availability of official court reporters and the need to provide them in disciplines where a court reporter is mandated by statute, notice of the availability of a court reporter may not be given until the day of the trial or hearing and may result in a continuance of the matter if there is no court reporter available.” The general order stated that official court reporters would still normally be available for “all proceedings in felony criminal and juvenile cases.” In respondent Santa Clara County Superior Court, according to a declaration by an attorney with BayLegal, family law departments largely stopped providing official court reporters in the middle of 2020. Although indigent litigants are entitled to a court reporter at no cost under Jameson, the attorney’s experience has been that the court “often” failed to provide court reporters when requested. At that point, an indigent litigant could choose to (1) continue the proceeding to allow the court another opportunity to provide a court reporter or (2) go forward without the means to create an official verbatim record. However, according to the attorney, litigants who chose to continue the proceeding “have endured multiple continuances for a single proceeding due to court reporter unavailability. . . . When a court reporter is still unavailable after the first or second continuance, most clients have opted to go forward without [a] verbatim recording.” The attorney argues that continuances in and of themselves can be harmful to litigants both because their requests for relief may be urgent (including domestic violence restraining orders, interim child and spousal support, or child custody and visitation) and because it is logistically difficult and emotionally taxing for many indigent litigants to travel to court and appear in person. 7  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. Faced with these consequences, the attorney reports that indigent litigants “often” choose to go forward without a court reporter. In respondent Contra Costa County Superior Court, according to a declaration by another BayLegal attorney, official court reporters are only available on a limited basis in family, probate, and unlimited civil departments. An August 2021 standing order advises the public that the court “may move reporters from Family Law to perform reporting services in other court departments, except for those Family Law cases where a reporter is required by statute or case law.” The BayLegal attorney reports that indigent litigants’ requests under Jameson for a court reporter in Contra Costa County Superior Court “regularly” go unfulfilled because an official court reporter is unavailable. If these litigants opt for a continuance, the resulting delays may extend for many months. Some litigants have even “experienced multiple continuances of a single proceeding” because of court reporter unavailability. This attorney also expresses concerns regarding the effect of continuances on her clients. An attorney with the Legal Aid Society of San Diego reports similar circumstances in respondent San Diego County Superior Court. A publicly available court policy document states that “official court reporters are normally available in felony criminal cases and juvenile matters during regular court hours,” but “[o]fficial court reporters are not normally available in civil matters, family law matters (with the exception of Family Support Division . . . matters and Contempt Hearings), 8  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. or in probate matters.”2 According to the Legal Aid attorney, court reporters are “not always available” to indigent litigants who make a request under Jameson. If a court reporter is not available, and the litigant chooses to continue the proceeding, the litigant may endure delays of several months or more. In the attorney’s view, a continuance “risks potential harm to indigent litigants” because it extends the effect of temporary orders, which are more likely to create conflict than permanent orders and which may not reflect current circumstances. The attorney states that, in her experience, “more than half of [her organization’s clients] decide to proceed without a court reporter when they have requested one, but one is not available.” In response to this systemic inability to comply with Jameson, several courts have issued general orders authorizing the use of electronic recording equipment to create an official verbatim record in certain situations when a court reporter is unavailable. For example, in September 2024, the Los Angeles County Superior Court adopted its general order authorizing electronic recording. The order stated that the court “can no longer reliably staff its courtrooms with court-employed certified shorthand reporters (‘CSRs’) because of a chronic shortage of CSRs available to be hired.” The order explained, “Without a CSR, vast number of litigants are left without a verbatim transcript — or even any verbatim record — of what occurred in hearings that may have a profound impact on their rights and lives. In 2023 alone, [the Los Angeles County 2 The Family Support Division handles matters filed by the San Diego County Department of Child Support Services, including actions to establish parentage and to enforce child support orders. 9  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. Superior Court] held more than 332,000 hearings for which there was no verbatim record of proceedings . . . .” The general order recognized that the court “is obligated to provide CSRs for certain criminal and juvenile proceedings, and for certain proceedings when requested by indigent litigants with an approved fee waiver [under Jameson].” But, according to the general order, the court’s efforts have “proven inadequate,” and it “cannot maintain [them] going forward.” The general order was supported by a declaration from the clerk of the court and executive officer, who described the court’s efforts to recruit and retain official court reporters and their meager results. The general order emphasized that, in some civil proceedings, an indigent litigant’s fundamental rights and liberty interests may be at stake. As examples, the general order identified cases involving (1) marital status and dissolution, (2) parentage rights and obligations, (3) child custody, (4) civil restraining orders, (5) civil commitment, (6) conservatorship and guardianship in probate, or (7) civil contempt. In cases where a fundamental right or liberty interest is at stake, the general order reasoned, enforcement of section 69957’s prohibition on electronic recording may violate an indigent litigant’s constitutional rights, where it would deprive the litigant of effective appellate review. The general order therefore authorized electronic recording “in family law, probate and civil departments as directed by the judicial officer presiding in such department,” if the judicial officer made certain required findings: “(1) the proceeding concerns matters that implicate fundamental rights or liberty rights as described herein; (2) one or more parties wishes to have the possibility of creating a verbatim transcript of the proceedings; (3) no official court-employed CSR is 10  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. reasonably available to report the proceeding; (4) the party so requesting has been unable to secure the presence of a private CSR to report the proceeding because such CSR was not reasonably available or on account of that party’s reasonable inability to pay; (5) the proceeding involves significant legal and/or factual issues such that a verbatim record is likely necessary to create a record of sufficient completeness; and (6) the proceeding should not, in the interests of justice, be further delayed.” The attached declaration stated that “all, or substantially all,” of the court’s courtrooms were equipped with electronic recording equipment. Other courts followed suit and issued similar general orders. The Santa Clara County Superior Court, for example, issued its general order in November 2024. It stated, “Without a court reporter, vast numbers of litigants are left without any verbatim record of hearings that may have a profound impact on their rights and lives. In 2023, our Court held more than 56,000 hearings for which there was no verbatim record of proceedings unless one or both parties retained and paid for a private court reporter, which significantly limits the parties’ appellate rights. There have been 59,000 more such hearings in 2024 to date, which means that, on average, each day, nearly 290 hearings occur in our Court where the parties do not have access to a verbatim record unless they retain and pay for a private court reporter.” This order was likewise supported by a declaration from Santa Clara’s clerk of court and executive officer describing the court’s unsuccessful efforts to recruit and retain official court reporters. The Santa Clara order similarly authorized its judicial officers to use electronic recording equipment if the judicial officer makes the six factual findings described above. The Contra Costa County Superior Court 11  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. issued a general order authorizing electronic recording in December 2024. The San Diego County Superior Court has not issued a similar general order. Meanwhile, also in December 2024, petitioners filed this original petition for writ of mandate challenging the practices of the four respondent superior courts — Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and San Diego — with respect to verbatim records of civil proceedings. Petitioner FVAP alleges that it is a California nonprofit corporation “that assists clients with appeals involving domestic violence, child custody and visitation, housing, access to justice, and related issues throughout the state, including in matters originating in the Respondent courts.” Its clients are primarily low-income individuals. FVAP further alleges that it has “declined appellate assistance to dozens of abuse survivors because there were no verbatim recordings of their trial court proceedings,” even in cases where the prospective client’s “account of the proceedings suggests a meritorious appeal.” Petitioner BayLegal alleges that it is “the largest provider of free civil legal services in the San Francisco Bay Area.” All of its clients are low-income individuals. Its client representation includes “matters involving child custody, support, and domestic violence restraining orders, guardianship, and debt collection and other consumer disputes.” BayLegal alleges that the lack of court reporter availability described above has harmed the organization because its attorneys must expend additional resources preparing for hearings that are later continued and because the organization has provided funds for a private court reporter in some matters. Petitioners assert that the respondent courts have a ministerial duty under Jameson and the California Constitution 12  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. to provide indigent and low-income civil litigants with some means of obtaining an official verbatim record of proceedings, including by electronic recording if a court reporter is unavailable. Petitioners emphasize that, under Jameson, an official verbatim record is a fundamental component of meaningful access to justice for indigent litigants. Petitioners contend that the statutory prohibition on electronic recording materially impairs the inherent powers of the courts and thus violates the constitutional guarantee of separation of powers. Petitioners further contend that indigent and low-income litigants have a due process right to an official verbatim record and the courts’ failure to provide any means of creating an official verbatim record violates equal protection principles. They seek a writ of mandate directing that any litigant in a civil proceeding who cannot afford a private court reporter is entitled to an official verbatim record of proceedings created at no charge, including by electronic recording if an official court reporter is not available, and prohibiting the respondent superior courts from relying on section 69957 in that instance. We issued an order to show cause, returnable in this court, why petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought. In their return, the superior courts stated they “would let [their] lengthy General Orders speak for themselves at this juncture,” and they did not expressly deny petitioners’ factual allegations or dispute their legal conclusions. They expressed concern, however, over the scope of the relief sought. They resisted petitioners’ effort to place a new duty on the superior courts. Instead, they preferred to read petitioners’ request for relief as allowing, but not requiring, courts to use electronic recording to satisfy their duties under Jameson or other statutes. 13  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. In their reply, petitioners reaffirmed their request that courts be required to provide indigent and low-income civil litigants with a means of creating an official verbatim record of proceedings in all circumstances, including by electronic recording if a court reporter is unavailable. Petitioners disagreed that their prayer for relief was limited to allowing courts to use electronic recording to create an official verbatim record, assuming it was otherwise required. Numerous amici curiae filed briefs in the matter. Many organizations and individuals supported the relief sought by petitioners. The Survivor Justice Center, for example, emphasized the importance of a verbatim record in family law and domestic violence restraining order proceedings. As other examples, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California argued that the electronic recording prohibition in section 69957 violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, and the California Lawyers Association contended that section 69957 violates the principle of separation of powers. We invited the Attorney General to address the issues raised by the petition, and he offered a variation of petitioners’ due process argument. In his view, due process requires that courts use electronic recording to create an official verbatim record in proceedings involving a low-income litigant, at least where a court reporter is unavailable and electronic recording equipment is already installed. A group of professional associations and a trade union representing official court reporters also filed an amicus curiae brief. They contend that the petition should be dismissed because it relies on disputed facts regarding the reasons why superior courts could not provide a sufficient number of official 14  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. court reporters to cover all civil proceedings. In their view, this shortfall is at least partially attributable to the superior courts’ own management missteps and funding choices. The court reporter organizations also maintain that the supply of court reporters available in California will increase due to recent developments, including licensing reciprocity with other states, certification of voice writers (who require significantly less training than traditional shorthand reporters), and a pilot program for remote reporting. The court reporter organizations dispute whether all superior courts are experiencing a shortfall of available reporters to the same extent. For example, an official court reporter employed by the San Diego County Superior Court stated in a declaration that the court provides official court reporters for all criminal, juvenile, mental health, and child support proceedings. In addition, he maintained, “To my knowledge, the Court is generally able to accommodate requests for court reporters submitted by low-income litigants who are eligible for fee waivers. I am not aware of a recent instance where the Court has been unable to accommodate a litigant’s timely submitted request for a court reporter under Jameson.” Finally, the court reporter organizations argue that electronic recording is not an adequate substitute for traditional court reporting. Several court reporters and a family law attorney submitted declarations stating that electronic recording technology is not reliable in their experience because the microphones do not capture every speaker, significant portions are unintelligible, and the court personnel responsible for monitoring the equipment do not focus on recording because they have other duties. In response, petitioners assert that the court reporter organizations misunderstand their allegations. In their view, 15  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. the petition “neither seeks nor requires a parsing of the causes of the court reporter shortage in California’s superior courts or any assignment of ‘fault.’ ” Petitioners contend it is “immaterial” why court reporters are not regularly present in civil courtrooms and it is unnecessary to determine “whether electronic recording is better or worse than reporting by a certified shorthand court reporter.” According to petitioners, “The only facts that matter are that (1) court reporters are routinely not present in civil, family, and probate courtrooms, with low-income litigants regularly being told ‘there is no court reporter available for you today,’ and (2) when those courts adhere to the letter of Section 69957, they provide no verbatim recording for those litigants.” II. DISCUSSION A. Writs of Mandate Petitioners have filed an original petition for writ of mandate in this court. “This court entertains original jurisdiction in mandamus under California Constitution, article VI, section 10 . . . . We exercise such jurisdiction, however, only in cases in which ‘the issues presented are of great public importance and must be resolved promptly.’ ” (San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Johnson (1971) 3 Cal.3d 937, 944.) In this case, “in making the writ returnable before this court, we . . . necessarily determined that the case is a proper one for the exercise of our original jurisdiction.” (County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 845.) “Mandate is the principal extraordinary writ surviving under California law.” (City of King City v. Community Bank of Central California (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 913, 925.) It “may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, 16  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, subd. (a).) “To obtain relief, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) no ‘plain, speedy, and adequate’ alternative remedy exists [citation]; (2) ‘ “a clear, present, . . . ministerial duty on the part of the respondent” ’; and (3) a correlative ‘ “clear, present, and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty.” ’ ” (People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 340 (Picklesimer).) Petitioners have clearly satisfied the first and third elements. As to the first, writ review may be appropriate where the petition involves “questions of first impression that are of general importance to the trial courts and to the profession, and where general guidelines can be laid down for future cases.” (Oceanside Union School Dist. v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 180, 185, fn. 4.) It may also be appropriate where “the issues presented are of great public importance and must be resolved promptly.” (Powers v. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal.4th 85, 113.) Here, it is undisputed that the absence of an official verbatim record “affects thousands of litigants statewide every day,” as petitioners allege. It is likewise undisputed that the petition involves issues of general importance to the lower courts, specifically how to manage the widespread shortfall of official court reporters in civil matters, and for which this court’s prompt guidance would be beneficial. As the respondent superior courts recognize, the petition “presents important matters on which statewide action and this Court’s guidance are urgently needed.” While other remedies may exist, such as a declaratory relief action in the superior court, the existence of such a remedy “ ‘does not prevent the use 17  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. of mandate.’ ” (Glendale City Employees’ Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale (1975) 15 Cal.3d 328, 343, fn. 20.) As to the third element, petitioners have established a beneficial interest in the issuance of a writ directing the superior courts to provide indigent civil litigants with some means of obtaining an official verbatim transcript, including by electronic recording if no court reporter is available. A beneficial interest exists where a party has “ ‘some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.’ ” (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 165; see Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 362 [beneficial interest standard is “equivalent to the federal ‘injury in fact’ test”].) Petitioners allege that the failure of the superior courts to provide a means to obtain a verbatim record has caused injury to petitioners in the form of additional expenditure of staff time (e.g., to deal with continuances) and, in at least a few cases, additional expenditure of funds (e.g., to pay for a court reporter). This injury is sufficient to confer a beneficial interest in the outcome of these proceedings. (See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (1982) 455 U.S. 363, 379 [organization that provided “counseling and referral services for low- and moderate-income home- seekers” suffered injury from realty company’s practice of illegally providing Black applicants with false information regarding housing opportunities].) The remaining element is the existence of a ministerial duty on the part of the respondent. “A ministerial duty is an obligation to perform a specific act in a manner prescribed by law whenever a given state of facts exists, without regard to any 18  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. personal judgment as to the propriety of the act.” (Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 340; accord, Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 916.) Petitioners contend that Jameson and the California Constitution impose a ministerial duty on the respondent superior courts to afford indigent civil litigants meaningful access to an official verbatim record of trial court proceedings, including by means of electronic recording if an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore is unavailable. For the reasons discussed in the following parts, we conclude that petitioners have shown that the respondent superior courts have such a duty based on Jameson and the in forma pauperis doctrine. Where a litigant requests the creation of an official verbatim record and establishes an inability to pay for a private court reporter, a superior court has a duty to provide some way for the litigant to obtain an official verbatim record, including by electronic recording if an official reporter is unavailable. It has no discretion to decline to do so. B. The In Forma Pauperis Doctrine The in forma pauperis doctrine refers to the inherent power of a court to facilitate meaningful access to justice for indigent litigants, who may otherwise be prevented from participating in the judicial process by their financial condition. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 605.) Although the doctrine originated in English common law (see Martin v. Superior Court (1917) 176 Cal. 289, 293–294 (Martin)), it is now supplemented by statutory enactment. Section 68630 recites the legislative finding and declaration that “our legal system cannot provide ‘equal justice under law’ unless all persons have access to the courts without regard to their economic means. California law 19  FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J. and court procedures should ensure that court fees are not a barrier to court access for those with insufficient economic means to pay those fees.” (Id., subd. (a).) Under the in forma pauperis doctrine, “despite the apparent mandatory character of a variety of statutes calling for the payment of litigation fees, California courts retain a common law authority to dispense with such fees in the case of poor litigants.” (Conover v. Hall (1974) 11 Cal.3d 842, 850–851 (Conover).) Even where a mandatory statute contains no exception for indigent litigants, courts have the inherent power to imply one. In this respect, “only the plainest declarations of legislative intent would be construed as an effort to curtail the authority of courts given by the common law to admit litigants to sue in forma pauperis.” (Majors v. Superior Court of Alameda Co. (1919) 181 Cal. 270, 276, italics omitted (Majors).) This court has recognized that the in forma pauperis doctrine extends beyond the paradigmatic example of court fees and costs. For example, in Conover, we considered whether the in forma pauperis doctrine empowers a trial court to grant a party’s request for a preliminary injunction without requiring the party to post a bond as security for any damages. (Conover, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 850.) A statute provided that the court must require, upon granting the injunction, “ ‘a written undertaking on the part of the applicant . . . to the effect that he will pay to the party enjoined such damages, not exceeding an amount to be specified, as such party may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled thereto.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Code Civ. Proc., former § 529.) The party opposing the injunction “point[ed] to the mandatory language of this section and urge[d] that the trial court lacked authority to waive this bond requirem