Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis discuss Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court's unanimous August 2026 decision holding that an indigent litigant unable to find or afford a court reporter is entitled to an electronic recording, and that the trial court has a ministerial duty to press record. The court reached that result through the common law in forma pauperis doctrine rather than constitutional grounds, which means the right runs in every civil case type.

And less than a month later, the Third District applied the same access-to-courts reasoning in Guzman v. Superior Court to cut a $31 million appeal bond to $1.25 million for a defendant worth $1.75 million, holding that "indigent" under CCP 995.240 means unable to obtain sufficient sureties, not destitute.

Tim and Jeff also cover SB 574, California's new statute requiring attorneys to disclose use of generative AI in court filings and to personally verify every citation, effective January 1, 2027.

Topics covered:

• The FVAP ministerial duty to record electronically and how to make the showing
• How to establish indigency for bond reduction under CCP 995.240 after Guzman
• Where the access-to-courts doctrine may travel next: AI interpreters? AI translations of the electronically recorded trial?
• SB 574's disclosure and citation-verification requirements for California litigators

What procedures do you think the FVAP reasoning might affect next?