Deaf people have a legal right to a qualified interpreter. In legal settings, a qualified legal interpreter will have a specific skill set to ensure that the deaf person’s right to be present and participate is not compromised. Legal interpreting requires highly skilled and trained specialists because of the significant consequences to the people involved in the event of a failed communication. A Certified Deaf Interpreter may be included to enhance clarity of communication.
Courtroom interpreting can be very stressful for a Sign Language Interpreter. The stakes are often high. The following are examples of complaints filed and decisions reached involving the Sign Language Interpreter in a legal setting. These come from the records of ONE State Court system.
| 11/16 | A judge filed a complaint against an interpreter for behavior exhibited during a sexual assault trial. The complaint alleged that the interpreter was disrespectful and rude to the court and while a victim was testifying, the interpreter approached the stand without permission, thereby frightening the victim. | The Character and Fitness Sub-Committee determined that the interpreter did not intentionally violate any section of the Code of Ethics, however, members did believe the interpreter’s conduct was negligent and lacked proper deference to the judge especially as an officer of the court. | SCR 63.04 Professional Demeanor |
| 05/14 | A consumer filed a complaint against an interpreter for whom the interpreter provided services for during an examination to determine disability benefits. The complaint alleged that the interpreter offered a personal opinion to the examiner about the consumer’s mental condition which led to a denial of benefits. | The Character and Fitness Sub-Committee lacked jurisdiction to review this complaint because the interpreter was not listed on the Director of State Court’s roster. A copy of the complaint was provided to the interpreter. | |
| 11/13 | An advocate filed a complaint on behalf of a victim for whom the interpreter was interpreting. The complaint alleged that the interpreter made the victim feel intimidated through the interpreter’s attitude, actions, and tone of voice which rose to the level of “interrogation.” The complaint further alleged this interpreter misinterpreted the time of the incident and used the same interrogatory manner with a different litigant in a separate hearing. | Without more evidence or corroboration by an additional witness, the allegation of unprofessional conduct and accuracy against the interpreter could not be substantiated. No significant ethical breach was determined. | SCR 63.01 Accuracy and Completeness; 63.04 Professional Demeanor |
| 03/13 | Two interpreters filed separate complaints against another interpreter for allegedly violating various canons such as scope of practice by engaging in duties that exceed what is appropriate for interpreters; professional demeanor as it relates to team interpreting, double-booking, and double-billing; and accuracy and completeness regarding grammar and questionable terms used by the interpreter in the non-English language. | None of the allegations against the interpreter could be substantiated therefore no significant ethical breaches were determined. Interpreter was directed to read a practice paper on Team Interpreting developed by the National Association or Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) and was encouraged to work with other colleagues to foster a professional and collegial environment. | SCR 63.01 Accuracy and Completeness; SCR 63.04 Professional Demeanor; SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice |
| 08/12 | Party filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly breaching confidentiality regarding information obtained during an interpreting assignment and for not disclosing the interpreter’s familiarity with the parties and family members. | No merit was found regarding the breach of confidentiality allegation. A review of the court transcript determined that the interpreter did violate the Code of Ethics by not disclosing to the court on the record the interpreter’s familiarity with the parties. Interpreter was required to retake the Ethics portion of orientation. | SCR 63.03 Impartiality and Avoidance of Conflict of Interest |
| 01/11 | Advocate filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly providing an opinion to the pro se party receiving interpreter services that may have been construed as legal advice. | Conduct of the interpreter did not rise to the level of an ethical breach, however, interpreter may have overstepped role by providing information to the court directly as opposed to interpreting what the speakers were saying. | SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice |
| 11/10 | LEP party filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly remaining silent and not providing information to the party. | No significant ethical breaches by the interpreter. It is likely party was confused by the interpreter’s role and expected more guidance to be provided when the interpreter was abiding by the Code of Ethics. | SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice |
| 09/10 | Interpreter filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly summarizing statements of LEP party’s testimony, not seeking clarification with unfamiliar terms, and speaking in the third person. | Upon review of an audio recording of the proceedings, enough evidence was produced to determine a finding that significant ethical breaches were committed by interpreter. Revocation of interpreter’s certification was imposed and stayed. Interpreter was required to re-take sessions on Code of Ethics and small group discussion at an interpreter orientation, re-reading the SCR 63.01 and 63.08 along with the accompanying comments. The district court administrator who works in the courts where the interpreter is frequently assigned should randomly monitor the interpreter’s performance during proceedings. | SCR 63.01 Accuracy and Completeness; SCR 63.08 Reporting Impediments to Performance |
| 05/10 | Attorney filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly leaving an out-of-court assignment without notice to the attorney and for questionable billing practices and unprofessional conduct. | No significant ethical breaches were committed by interpreter. While there is concern about unprofessional conduct of an interpreter who apparently left an assignment without notice, there appeared to be pre-existing issues concerning payment to interpreter by attorney. Not enough verifiable evidence regarding questionably billing practices was produced by complainant. | SCR 63.04 Professional Demeanor |
| 12/09 | Attorney filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly commenting about the language abilities of the litigant which may have caused a negative chain of events for the attorney’s client. | No significant ethical breaches by the interpreter but more likely a misunderstanding by the recipient of the information (in this case the judicial assistant) whereby the interpreter’s statement was conveyed inaccurately to the judge. Interpreter was reminded, however, that the interpreter’s job is to interpret and not to provide comments on the language abilities of the parties and the need for an interpreter. Determining the need for an interpreter is the responsibility of the court. | SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice |
| 07/07 | Interpreter filed complaint against another interpreter for alleging complainant was misrepresenting qualifications. | No merit was found in this complaint. | SCR 63.02 Representation of Qualifications |
| 07/07 | Interpreter filed complaint against another interpreter for allegedly accepting an assignment for a sign language case where interpreter was not qualified to do so. | Enough evidence was presented to substantiate complainant’s claim that interpreter accepted an assignment in which interpreter did not hold the requisite linguistic competency for the job. Interpreter held no credentials from any agency or entity to qualify interpreter as a sign language interpreter but did hold credentials as a certified Spanish interpreter. Interpreter was strongly discouraged from accepting any assignments for sign language interpretation in any court in Wisconsin. This finding did not affect interpreter’s certification status for Spanish. | SCR 63.02 Representation of Qualifications |
| 11/06 | Interpreter filed complaint against another interpreter for allegedly using threatening remarks; for interfering in a confidential conversation between attorney and client in a crowded hallway; and for a general lack of professionalism towards colleagues. | No significant ethical breaches had been committed by interpreter. No corroboration of either interpreter’s story was presented so both interpreters’ versions of the situation were plausible. In a busy hallway, the expectation of privacy may be compromised. The motivation for filing the complaint was questioned since it was interpreter against interpreter. Interpreters may be asked to work together in the future and should be mindful if this incident affects their ability to do so, either interpreter must not take assignment. | SCR 63.04 Professional Demeanor; SCR 63.05 Confidentiality; SCR 63.08 Assessing and Reporting Impediments to Performance |
| 09/06 | Consumer filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly giving out legal advice regarding presentation of witnesses at an injunction hearing; and for making consumer change her reply by refusing to interpret what consumer said during hearing. | Enough evidence was presented to substantiate consumer’s complaint and interpreter’s explanations were not credible. Interpreter was removed from roster for a 12-month period and required to attend Code of Ethics lecture and small group discussion at court interpreter orientation training. | SCR 63.01 Accuracy and Completeness; SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice |
| 01/06 | Interpreter for petitioner (who was also a relative of petitioner) filed a complaint against interpreter for allegedly trying to dissuade party from filing petition during a private conversation held prior to harassment injunction hearing; and for trying to influence testimony of petitioner by using hand gestures. | No significant ethical breaches had been committed by interpreter but more likely a misunderstanding. Interpreter should be mindful of conversing with parties without a third party present and for using hand gestures to indicate “slow down” during interpretation. Motivation for filing complaint was also questioned since it was interpreter against interpreter. | SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice; SCR 63.03 Impartiality and Conflict of Interest |
While clarity of communication is always important, in legal settings the stakes are especially high. Not a job for newbies or family members. Additional information available here: https://signlanguageco.com/industries-served/legal/
September 26, 2018
asl, CDI, deaf, deaf community, legal, sign language interpreters