Many are not following the rules for interpreters
Many are not following the rules for interpreters
Many lawyers are not complying with Supreme Court-approved rules requiring them to use registered court interpreters for virtually all court and court-related proceedings.
The issue, including recent rule amendments applying to court interpreters, was discussed at the October 21 Rules of Judicial Administration Committee meeting. Committee member Amy Borman, general counsel for the 15th Circuit and former RJAC chair, said many lawyers are not aware of the scope of the court’s action and aren’t using registered interpreters for their depositions, mediations, court appearances, and other related activities.
The court first established rules for using language interpreters in 2006, and then modified those rules in 2014 and twice more in 2015. R. Jud. Admin. 2.560 governs courts when they appoint interpreters and R. Jud. Admin 2.565 covers attorneys and self-represented parties when they are required to provide interpreters.
The court in R. Jud. Admin. 2.565 said attorneys and self-represented litigants must “observe the same preferences when retaining interpreters for court proceedings and court-related proceedings as do the courts when appointing interpreters under Rule 2.560.”
The court also said interpreters must be used for people who are language-impaired as well as for non-English speakers.
“‘Court interpreter’ is defined to include all persons providing spoken language interpreting services in all court and court-related proceedings, except those providing services without pay to indigent persons when court appointment is not required,” the court said in 2015. “We also adopt a definition of ‘court-related proceeding’ that will make clear that the provision of high-quality court interpreting services is intended to include not only proceedings presided over by a judge, magistrate, or hearing officer but also ancillary activities such as depositions, mediations, and other similar proceedings. The purpose of these amendments is to broaden the application of the court interpreter rules and to elevate the quality of court interpreter services throughout the court system.”
In the 2014 ruling, the court had established three levels of “designated” interpreters: certified, language-skilled, and provisionally approved. Only when an interpreter with one of those designations was unavailable could an “undesignated interpreter” be used. The court clarified last year that all interpreters designated or undesignated had to register with the Office of the State Courts Administrator before they could be used in court or court-related proceedings, and they were also bound by the court interpreters’ Code of Professional Conduct. Even undesignated interpreters are required to meet certain training and education requirements.
After the meeting, Borman said that when she has held training sessions for lawyers, paralegals, and others, she’s found most are unaware of the rule.
“My guess is that attorneys, when they see a rule about interpreters, think, ‘Criminal, the court provides interpreters. Because I am a civil practitioner, I have a family practice, or I’m in traffic court, I don’t need a certified interpreter; I just need to bring someone with me,’” she said. “Civil and family practitioners have to realize that they, too, are bound by these rules.”
Under R. Jud. Admin. 2.560, the court provides an attorney in criminal and juvenile cases and in cases where a fundamental interest is involved, such as civil commitment, determination of parental rights, dependency hearings, and similar issues. In all other cases, the attorney must provide the interpreter using the same standards the courts follow when they hire interpreters, seeking out, in order of preference, certified, language skilled, or provisionally approved interpreters. If that’s not possible, an interpreter registered with OSCA can be used.
If no one in those four classifications can be found, then the attorney or self-represented litigant may use another interpreter but only after certifying by oath or in writing the interpreter is competent, and submitting the interpreter’s name, address, and other information to OSCA.
Failure to follow the rules could lead to unpleasant consequences, Borman said, including perhaps the necessity of redoing a mediation, deposition, or hearing with an approved interpreter, “which is more time and money for the client.”
