Huge Responsibility of an Interpreter

After sitting through a court trial where one of the witnesses needed an interpreter I was reminded of the huge responsibility of an interpreter.  All it takes is one slight misinterpretation to throw off communication and in the case of a trial possibly affect the outcome.  Even the best of interpreters cannot be perfect so utilizing highly qualified interpreters doesn't even solve this problem.

Limited English Proficient Speakers Access to Courts

I recently was on the phone talking with a client of my about how her family court hearing went (we were not able to represent in that matter). And her description of the hearing brought me back to a hearing I sat in a couple of months ago that really reflected the issues that non-English speakers come across when trying to access our court services.

The hearing I observed a couple of months ago was in front of one of the Assistant Family Court Commissioners and both parties had attorneys plus there was a g.a.l. The court appointed interpreter sat between the petitioner and respondent putting them in close proximity which I would imagine would be uncomfortable for a victim of domestic violence. Most of the hearing was in English between the three attorneys in the room and the Commissioner. The court appointed interpreter was good about interpreting anything that the petitioner or responded said but often fell into silence as the attorneys negotiated and he even got lazy about translating the Commissioner's findings and orders. So our client walked out of that hearing having missed so much information. Fortunately she had an attorney with an interpreter (me) to explain what happened after the fact.

The client I recently spoke to had to go it alone and then when the hearing was done she was handed a copy of the orders in English of course.

Limited English Proficient

Click on the title of this post for a link to the letter written by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez of the U.S. Department of Justice. In this letter Attorney Perez outlines the federal requirements of courts when working with individuals who are limited English proficient.

Although, Milwaukee County does provide court certified interpreters for hearings, I have found that they still have a ways to go. Several Judges have a tendency to hold lengthy conversations off the record and do not provide interpreters for anything that is not on the record. Additionally, our attorneys have encountered gal's who include in their fees, their costs for using an interpreter.

And for some reason lately, court commissioners are asking individuals like me (who are not certified) to interpret when an injunction hearing is going to be adjourned for no service or when the opposing party does not show up even though he/she has been served. Their calendars are booked and they don't want to wait until the court interpreter shows up and there is often a very long wait for the interpreter who has to be in many places at once. But these individuals deserve a qualified, trained interpreter to ensure that they completely understand their case and have access to the courts.

Issues affecting non-English speakers

I attended a hearing with a Spanish-speaking client today (my first client where I have been the translator). We lost unfortunately. Although all of the attorneys that I work with lost in front of this Commissioner this week in cases where we should have won. So I'm not sure what was up this week.

But what I was most frustrated with was the disadvantages non-English speaking clients face in our court system. In addition to the issues associated with having a translator that I spoke about in this post, today the translator didn't keep up with the translation and left out pieces, sometimes critical pieces, when translating into English. Usually this is a very good translator so it surprised me a bit. But then I realized that the Commissioner was fluent in Spanish so for the purpose of today's hearing, it really didn't matter how much the translator translated. But as we discussed the de novo review process with our client afterwards, I realized that the transcript of today's hearing would not very accurately reflect what the petitioner and respondent had actually said, which could be a huge hindrance to a fair de novo review.

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.