Speakers of languages other than English

Today I had a chance to sit in on my firm's family law priority meeting where attorneys discussed areas of the legal system that needed improvement with our clients in mind.

One of the topics that most interested me was a discussion on the challenges in the legal system faced by non-English speakers. Feeling that this is a very worthy topic for my blog, I would like to summarize what was said.

First, in my courtrooms Judges and Commissioners do not allow attorney's own interpreters to sit at the table with their client. Instead all communication goes through the court appointed interpreter. And it makes sense that the court appointed interpreter doing all of the translator for what is said on record. But what about private conversations between attorney and client? Especially if it is only one court appointed interpreter translating for both the petitioner and the respondent, this really takes away the opportunity for private conversations.

Secondly, when the court only appoints one interpreter for both parties, it often forces both parties to sit closer so that the interpreter can be close to both parties. In some cases that may not be as big of an issue but in cases of domestic violence the last thing we want is for the petition to be forced to sit close to the respondent. Additionally, for the client who talks to the interpreter instead of the judge, that forces that client to basically look at the opposing party. This could greatly affect the testimony given by either party. In observing domestic abuse injunction hearings, I have seen this first hand and see what an awkward position this puts on the petitioner. Several attorneys have seen a system in courtrooms where the interpreter sits away from both parties and uses headphones to communicate, allow for a safer distance between parties and also allowing the parties not to get confused switching between English and their native language if they have some knowledge of English. So this would be one way to solve this problem. Additionally, if an interpreter was only allowed to translate for one party it would also solve this problem.

Thirdly, many attorneys brought up a concern about how to handle an interpreter that doesn't accurately translate. Being allowed to have your own interpreter at the table with the attorney and client would be one way to correct any mistranslations or clarify if it was clear a client was not understanding. Any inaccuracy in translation can make a big difference in the testimony of a client.

Finally there was a concern about the additional costs that arise from being someone who needs interpretation. It was brought up that Guardian ad litems charge for the cost of interpretation services when interviewing clients. This is a cost that English speakers do not have to pay. With many of the non-English speakers being very poor this puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

Because of these issues, many non-English speaking clients come out of trial not entirely sure of what happened and at a clear disadvantage to their English speaking counterparts. I hope that they are issues we as a society will be able to address and fix as we try to make legal help more accessible to all.