The Underinvestment Crisis in the Courtroom

If we had to distill our recent conversations with clerks, court administrators, and other court staff into a single premise, it would be this:

Courts face two interconnected pressures that are likely to shape courtroom operations over the next decade: a shrinking pool of qualified staff and growing demands on the employees who remain.

As staffing shortfalls increase individual workloads, sustained workload pressure can contribute to further attrition—placing even greater strain on an already limited workforce.

Courts are increasingly aware of this cycle and have begun taking steps to address it. However, many lack the institutional resources necessary to implement the broader structural changes required to break it. Immediate operational demands understandably take priority, leaving limited time, staffing, and budget available to evaluate longer-term strategies and investments. 

At Liberty Recording, we refer to this broader structural challenge as the Underinvestment Crisis. It is not simply a question of funding. Rather, it reflects the difficulty courts face in allocating sufficient resources toward the people, processes, and technologies needed to support increasingly complex operations.

Staffing Shortfalls

Compensation provides one of the clearest indicators of this underinvestment.

Over the past decade, wages for court clerks and judicial law clerks have declined substantially relative to median individual income. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data analyzed for this article, court clerks and related positions have declined from approximately 125% of median individual income to roughly 105% (see Figure A). Among judicial law clerks, the decline is even more pronounced, from approximately twice the median individual income to around 150% (see Figure B). 

For judicial law clerks in particular, compensation must also be considered alongside the educational requirements of the position. Law graduates entering the workforce may face substantial student debt while also having access to private-sector opportunities offering considerably higher compensation. Courts therefore compete for qualified candidates within a labor market in which the financial advantages of alternative career paths can be significant.

More Work, Fewer People

Compensation is only one side of the problem. The work required to administer increasingly complex cases and facilitate modern court proceedings has also expanded.

Digital discovery is one contributing factor. As records, communications, and evidentiary materials have moved into digital formats, the volume of information associated with individual cases can increase substantially. Court staff may consequently be responsible for receiving, organizing, preserving, and managing far more material than would have been practical in a predominantly paper-based environment.

Virtual and hybrid hearings have added another layer of operational complexity. Meeting-based platforms adopted rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic enabled courts to maintain continuity of operations and remain in use in many jurisdictions. However, these systems were developed primarily for general-purpose conferencing rather than the specific operational requirements of judicial proceedings.

Courtroom workflows may require simultaneous management of multiple proceedings, controlled movement of participants, differentiated access to video or evidence, private communications, recording, and coordination with in-room AV systems. When the underlying platform was not designed around those requirements, courts may be required to create additional procedures or rely on staff intervention to bridge the gap.

The result is an important distinction: the answer is not simply more technology, but technology that reduces rather than adds to administrative workload.

Investment Should Reduce Work

Courts organize their personnel differently. In some jurisdictions, clerks may also operate recording and conferencing systems. In others, those responsibilities fall to dedicated court reporters, recording operators, technical staff, or combinations of these roles. Technology therefore cannot assume a single staffing model. It must be sufficiently flexible to support the operational structure of the individual court.

At Liberty Recording, we have addressed many of these challenges through Liberty Virtual Courtroom and the broader Liberty ecosystem. However, conferencing technology represents only one component of the larger response required.

The Underinvestment Crisis is fundamentally institutional. Courts, administrative offices, technology providers, and policymakers all have roles to play in developing sustainable solutions. Greater coordination among these groups can help reduce duplicated effort and lessen the need for individual courts to independently solve recurring operational problems. 

The same is true across jurisdictions. Courts regularly encounter similar challenges involving software limitations, AV integration, participant management, recording workflows, and staffing. Greater exchange of implementation experience allows successful practices developed in one court to inform decisions elsewhere while helping other jurisdictions avoid known limitations and unsuccessful approaches. 

Technology alone cannot resolve the Underinvestment Crisis. Staffing, compensation, workload, policy, and institutional resources remain closely interconnected. However, technology that reduces administrative burden, improves operational consistency, and makes more effective use of existing staff can form an important part of a broader response.

What Are You Seeing in Your Court?

Every court experiences these pressures differently. Staffing models, workloads, budgets, and technology environments vary considerably from one jurisdiction to another.

If the Underinvestment Crisis sounds familiar, we would like to hear how these challenges are affecting your court—and what you are doing to address them.

Let’s continue the conversation!