Interpreting depositions correctly.

March 27, 2017 § 17 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

Next to interpreting in a hearing, legal depositions are the most common professional service provided by court interpreters. They are in high demand, the field is full of potential direct clients, and they usually pay much better than an assignment by the court. With so many apparent advantages, the question that first comes to mind is: Why so many court interpreters do not pursue these assignments? And even among those who provide the service regularly, why is it that so few of our colleagues know what depositions are for, and how to correctly provide the service to ensure top accuracy and quality? Let’s see:

A deposition is the testimony of a witness taken orally (oral deposition) or in writing (interrogatories) outside open court, but in compliance with a court order or statute. It is a pretrial discovery device by which one party, through their attorney, ask oral questions of the other party or of a witness of the other party. It is conducted under oath or affirmation, without a judge, usually at the law office of one of the attorneys or at a court reporters’ office, and a word-for-word transcript is made. Interrogatories are answered in writing under oath or affirmation as well.

Depositions take place in both, criminal and civil proceedings and they are an extremely important part of the discovery process that takes place in an adversarial system, so that the attorneys of one party know what the counterpart or their witnesses will say during the trial. (Fed. R. Civil P.26 et seq.; Fed. R. Criminal P.15)

Oftentimes I run into colleagues who complain about “having to interpret” during a pretrial hearing “instead of interpreting during the trial”. My usual answer has to do with the importance of the pretrial motions and the discovery in general. I try to convey the concept that most cases are won or lost during the pretrial. Ascertaining the facts, excluding illegally obtained evidence, impeaching a witness based on statements made during a deposition, are invaluable as these legal actions and decisions determine what a jury will and will not hear at trial. A litigant exits the pretrial process with a strong winnable case or weakened by the discovery and pretrial motions argued before the judge.

Because of the importance and complexity of a deposition (and all pretrial actions and motions in general) it baffles me how extreme professional interpreting services can be at this stage of the process.

As depositions do not take place in the presence of the court, interpreting services for non-English speaking deponents are left to the professionalism, knowledge, and pocket of the attorney who represents the client. Because many attorneys seldom deal with foreign-language speakers, and for that reason know very little about interpreters and their services, they tend to seek the services of an agency, not for its quality or reputation, but because it was suggested by another colleague who had a case involving a non-English speaker in the past. For the most part the recommendation by the other attorney has to do with things such as: “they are cheap and they are quick”. Quality and experience are mentioned every once in a while.

We all know that, for the most part, there are no standards or policy regulating who can be an agency in the United States. This is an invitation to those with little to no interpreting knowledge to throw their hat in the ring and profit from this very popular professional service.

For the same reason: lack of basic quality standards, many paraprofessionals who unsuccessfully attempted to become certified court interpreters and failed, gravitate to this goose with the golden eggs where they will be on high demand by the above-mentioned ignorant agency owners who in turn will satisfy the requirements of the law office by providing interpreting services that are quick and cheap, regardless of their questionable quality.

But the landscape gets more complicated: For the same good reasons that bottom feeder agencies and paraprofessional interpreters are attracted to depositions, the best of the best in the world of legal interpreting participate in this market as well.

You see,  federal and state court systems retain the services of certified court interpreters, these professionals are for the most part better than non-certified, and from that point of view they are in demand. The problem is that the judiciary does not pay that well, with federal fees being half or less of what a conference interpreter makes, and under constraints of fixed fee schedules and budget cut limitations, the courts are less attractive to the very best in the profession. On the other hand, these top-notch court certified interpreters can negotiate with responsible and experienced law firms that value quality over rock bottom prices. This is the world of the direct client. Reputable agencies who handle big law firms and have a name to protect will also approach and retain these same high quality individuals. In fact, the field is so attractive that even interpreters from the highest caliber who usually do not work in the court system, and despite their vast experience and great skill have never pursued a court certification (but no doubt that candle these assignments because of their knowledge and capacity) provide interpreting services in depositions.

The result of all of the above circumstances and the participation of the wide range of individuals involved in this professional service is a reality where some depositions are interpreted at the highest possible level while at the same time many others are being butchered by paraprofessional interpreters, unscrupulous agencies, and careless lawyers. What a mess!

The good news is that, if they choose to do so, the best interpreters will be able to find good professional profitable clients whose clients will benefit immensely of a properly conducted discovery. The bad news is that many litigants, unaware of this reality, will trust the judgement of their advisers and end up with a defective interpreting service that most likely will impact the outcome of their case one way or another.

The solution to this problem, from the interpreters’ point of view, is relatively simple: stick to the good clients and ignore the bottom feeders. You do not need them, and they think they do not need you.

To me the biggest problem for the best interpreters who work depositions is, dear friends and colleagues, the alarming practice followed by so many of the top interpreters who accept to work alone in a deposition. Yes, I am referring to all of those who work solo, even when they provide services to the richest law firms in the world, including the work they do in very high-profile cases.

Team interpreting is a typical professional practice where two (or more) interpreters work as equal members of a team, rotating responsibilities at prearranged intervals and providing support and feedback to each other. This practice provides continuity and accuracy in the message transmission as it avoids fatigue and allows for word and concept checking during the rendition.

The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators of the United States (NAJIT) clearly spells out the function and the need for the second interpreter: “…The typical team is comprised of two interpreters who work in tandem, providing relief every 30 minutes. The interpreter engaged in delivering the interpretation at any given moment is called the active interpreter. His job is to interpret the court proceedings truly and accurately. The other interpreter is called the support interpreter. His job is to… (2) assist the active interpreter by looking up vocabulary, or acting as a second ear to confirm quickly spoken… 4) be available in case the active interpreter has an emergency; and (5) serve as an impartial language expert in the case of any challenge to interpretation…” (NAJIT Position paper Team Interpreting in the courtroom. Primary author: Andrew Erickson. 2007)

Scientific studies have shown that mental fatigue sets in after approximately 30 minutes of sustained simultaneous interpretation, resulting in a marked loss in accuracy. This is so regardless of how experienced or talented the interpreter may be. A 1998 study conducted at the École de Traduction et d’Interprétation at the University of Geneva, demonstrated the effects of interpreting over increasing periods of time. The conclusion of the study was that an interpreter’s own judgment of output quality becomes unreliable after increased time on task.  (Moser-Mercer, B., Kunzli, B., and Korac, M. 1998. “Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress.” University of Geneva, École de Traduction et d’Interprétation. Interpreting Vol. 3 (1), p. 47-64. John Benjamins Publishing Co.)

It is true that most reputable agencies and experienced law firms grant the solo interpreter, who is providing the services at the deposition, the choice to take as many breaks as needed. This is often the justification I hear from my colleagues as well.

I am glad that they get to rest their brain and voice every now and then, but it is not enough. There is no scientific conclusion as to how long the interpreter needs to rest before being back in optimum shape in order to continue the rendition with the same quality and at the same level as it was done at the beginning of the session. Obviously, the University of Geneva’s findings suggest that it takes about 30 minutes to get back to the top of your game.

I do not work under these “solo” conditions, but I could assure you that interpreters do not get a 30 minute break for every 30 minutes of service, and if they do, the attorneys would be better served by having a second interpreter actively interpreting during those 30 minutes. You see, it is a myth that having short breaks here and there will protect the interpreter and assure the quality of the service. This “solution” was developed to make everybody feel good even though nothing is really accomplished from the interpreter’s and the interpretation’s perspective. The only “positive” outcome of this solo work with “as many breaks as needed” has to do with the pocketbook of the law office and the profits of the agency. That is all.

But moving beyond that, there is a second, and equally important issue that goes unsolved without team interpreting.

Interpreting is a human task. It is extremely complex and delicate. Depositions present difficult situations that interpreters must solve in order to fulfill the ultimate purpose of the deposition: to ascertain the facts of the case, and to learn the unknown, to be able to ultimately prevail in court. In a deposition setting, interpreters need to understand and convey the message in two different languages, often spoken by individuals of different backgrounds, education, and willingness to disclose the truth. Interpreters need to find in their brain the appropriate scientific terminology, technical word, and regional expression that a deponent has used in the source language. The need to double-check a term, clarify an idiomatic expression, and research a concept are always present; In fact, they are the regular practice of the best interpreters who understand the relevance of the task at hand, and professionally look for the appropriate equivalency with the right syntax and grammar. This is not a job for one. Team interpreting allows the active interpreter to remain mentally fresh, while the support interpreter takes on other functions that would lead the active interpreter to cognitive overload.

For these reasons, it is universally accepted that team interpreting is the standard practice in courtrooms, conferences, international organizations, government events, and any other assignment that may last over 30 minutes. I only agree to do a deposition when I am working with a partner. My sense of professionalism, my reputation, my health, and my sanity, would not allow me to do anything else.

I invite you to stand up for what is right for you and for the profession. Just as you refuse to interpret a trial unless you have a partner, I encourage you to demand team interpreting in all depositions. It is only then that you will be living to the highest standards that a legal process requires. It is only then that you can unequivocally say that you did your best job at a deposition. Working solo, even if you take short breaks, will not relieve fatigue and it will not magically produce a support interpreter who will help you navigate the treacherous waters of legal interpreting.  I now invite you to share your thoughts on this extremely important issue and the terrible practice that permeates deposition interpreting.

If it is team interpreting, why are so many flying solo?

August 1, 2016 § 6 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

The last couple of months have brought to the forefront of my professional environment a frequently discussed, but rarely solved, issue: team interpreting.

Many of our court interpreter colleagues in the American southwest are presently fighting a battle against the uninformed government officials of that state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, for the very survival of our profession as we know it, and as it should be. They are fighting for essential elements of their professional practice such as clear and coherent payment practices, minimum guaranteed work hours, the use of legally certified court interpreters instead of paraprofessionals drafted sometimes from the ranks of those who failed the certification exam, and to have people with interpreting experience in the decision-making positions within the state government.

Talking to some of them, I noticed another concerning policy spelled out in a written communication from a state government official to the interpreters: A statement affirming a puzzling rule of the New Mexico Judiciary Court Interpreter Standards of Practice and Payment Policies, indicating that there would only be team interpreting when a hearing was scheduled to last over two hours. This is the text of said “standard of practice”:

“For court proceedings lasting less than two (2) hours, the court may appoint one (1) spoken language interpreter but the court shall allow the court interpreter to take breaks approximately every thirty (30) minutes.”  

Two hours!

In other words, neither the quality of the rendition nor the health of the interpreter are compromised as long as the interpreter “is allowed” by the judge to take a bathroom break every thirty minutes. And this rule is not an isolated case. There are plenty of states that follow the same “standards”, and there are other state court systems where they assign two interpreters for a long hearing or a trial, but in the understanding that the second interpreter will be available to cover other assignments during the thirty minutes when they are not actively interpreting.  Once again, we notice these government officials’ total lack of understanding of the team interpreting concept.

In fact, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) follows the same criteria in immigration court, where a solo rendition of a credible fear hearing could take all day without ever switching interpreters. It must be those magical bathroom breaks that the judge may allow every thirty minutes.

The problem, however, is not exclusive to the public sector, or to the United States for that matter.  I know many interpreters who will gladly agree to provide their services for a deposition without even asking about a second interpreter.  I have heard many colleagues in Europe and South America say that there is no team interpreting in a consecutive rendition.  Many of these colleagues do not even question the rationale behind such an assertion.  I guess the brain does not get tired during consecutive interpreting.

I know consecutive interpreting is as exhausting as a simultaneous rendition. I learned it the hard way many years ago when I made the horrendous mistake of taking an assignment to provide interpreting services during a series of depositions that were going to take place in Mexico for two weeks.  The pay was good and it was an interesting case with challenging vocabulary, so off we went to this town where a mining accident had occurred.  Besides me, the American team included three attorneys, two paralegals, two court reporters, and a camera operator to record the proceedings on video.  The days were long, sometimes over ten hours a day. On some days we would go to the mine where I had to interpret while climbing and descending inside the mountain. It was dangerous, and it was exhausting. There were times when by the end of the day I could not even move my mouth to utter the rendition. My brain had lost all command power over the movement of my mouth.  Of course I immediately understood why there were two court reporters: the hours were long and the work was very demanding. It was at that time that I made a mental note to always request team interpreting in all depositions and reject the ones where the agency, insurance company, or the attorneys were so cheap that they would not agree to pay for a team.

For the most part this policy has worked for many years. Sure, I had some bumps here and there, like the time when a financial specialist in a big law firm from the west coast sent me a check for one half of the time invoiced because: “…since there were two interpreters in the room, you just worked fifty percent of the time…”  Fortunately for everybody, that case had a happy ending. You see, lawyers who are used to team interpreting for a deposition know why they need two of us. I just called one of the attorneys, told her about the little incident, and my check for one hundred percent of my fee arrived two days later. The financial specialist learned what we do as interpreters and never made the same mistake again.

Dear colleagues, it has been proven that for quality and health reasons, interpreters need to take a break from the active role every thirty minutes or so. It is also widely accepted that during a difficult speech or a complex subject matter, the role of the second interpreter is key to the success of the rendition. A 1998 study conducted at the École de Traduction et d’Interprétation at the University of Geneva, demonstrated the effects of interpreting over increasing periods of time. The conclusion of the study was that an interpreter’s own judgment of output quality becomes unreliable after increased time on task. (Moser-Mercer, B., Kunzli, B., and Korac, M. 1998. “Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress.” University of Geneva, École de Traduction et d’Interprétation. Interpreting Vol. 3 (1), p. 47-64.)

The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) is the gold standard on working conditions for interpreters worldwide. Article 6 of its Professional Standards refers to team interpreting and it clearly states the following:

Article 6

Teams of Interpreters

Given the physical and mental fatigue that are caused by sustained concentration, certain constraints will necessarily apply to the composition of teams in order to guarantee that the work done will be of an optimum quality.

The minimum number of interpreters required to make up a team is a function of these constraints as well as the mode of interpretation, the number of languages used, the language classifications of the interpreters making up the team, the nature of the conference, its duration and the workload.

  1. Consecutive Interpretation
Number of languages used: Minimum number of interpreters:
Two languages into two         Two
Three languages into three     Three

Under exceptional circumstances and provided the principles of quality and health are taken into full consideration, it shall be possible to recruit just one interpreter instead of two or two interpreters instead of three.

  1. Whispered Interpretation

For a conference involving the interpretation of one or two languages into one other language and where there are no more than two listeners, whether or not consecutive interpretation is provided in the other direction, at least two interpreters shall be required.

  1. Simultaneous Interpretation

Teams of interpreters must be put together in such a way as to avoid the systematic use of relay. However, when there is no alternative to the use of relay for a given language, the team shall comprise at least two interpreters able to provide a relay from that language. In addition, if the relay is provided from a two-way booth, at least three interpreters shall work in that booth.

As a general rule, a team is composed of at least two interpreters per language and per booth. This is to ensure adequate coverage of all language combinations and to guarantee the necessary quality.

The number of interpretation booths is the same as the number of target languages, except for the case of two-language conferences where a single booth may suffice.

See Team Strength Table below.

Team strength table for simultaneous interpretation in booths

Number of languages used in the conference room Number of booths Number of interpreters (1)
One-language conference:

into one other language

into two other languages

… (2)

1

2

2*

4

Two-language conference:

into one of the languages used

into both languages used

into three languages (2+1)

into four languages (2+2)

… (2)

1

1 or 2

3

4

2*

3**

5

7

Three-language conference:

into one of the languages used

into two of the languages used

into all three languages used

into four languages (3+1)

into five languages (3+2)

… (2)

1

2

3

4

5

2

3

5***

7

9

Four-language conference:

into one of the languages used

into two of the languages used

into three of the languages used

into all four languages

into five languages (4+1)

into six languages (4+2)

… (2)

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

4

6

8***

10

12

Five-language conference

into one of the languages used

into two of the languages used

into three of the languages used

into four of the languages used

into all five languages used

into six languages (5+1)

into seven languages (5+2)

… (2)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

 

Notes on the Team Strength Table

(1) This number shall be increased if:

  • the language combinations are such that the minimum number of interpreters shown on the table is insufficient to cover them;
  • the working hours are long;
  • the conference involves the presentation of a large number of written statements or is of a technical or scientific nature requiring extensive preparation.

(2) And so on: each booth working non-stop must have at least two interpreters. Moreover, in the case of relay via a two-way booth, such booth shall have at least three interpreters.

* An interpreter shall not, as a general rule, work alone in a simultaneous interpretation booth, without the availability of a colleague to relieve her or him should the need arise.

** One of whom must be able to relieve each of the other two. In certain circumstances this number may be reduced to two (particularly for short meetings or meetings of a general nature, provided that each of the two interpreters can work into both languages).

*** Under certain circumstances and providing the principles of quality and health are fully respected, this number may be reduced by one (short meetings or meetings of a general nature)…”

We can see how team interpreting is necessary in all scenarios, not just simultaneous interpreting. Moreover, in a way, court interpreting can be more difficult than conference interpreting because it is hard to hear what the speakers say and sometimes they are not very articulated.  For this reason, the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators of the United States (NAJIT) has issued a position paper that states in part:

“…It is unrealistic to expect interpreters to maintain high accuracy rates for hours, or days, at a time without relief. If interpreters work without relief in proceedings lasting more than 30-45 minutes, the ability to continue to provide a consistently accurate translation may be compromised… Like a marathon runner who must maintain liquid intake at regular intervals during the race and not wait until thirst sets in, an interpreter needs regular breaks to ward off processing fatigue, after which the mental faculties would be impaired. Team interpreting allows the active interpreter to remain mentally fresh, while the support interpreter takes on other functions that would lead the active interpreter to cognitive overload…”

Moreover, regarding Sign Language interpreting, the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers of the United States Department of Education issued a paper in 2010 stating the following:

“…Research has confirmed the physical challenges that sign language interpreters face when they work alone for long periods of time. The professional association has long been concerned that the proper ergonomic conditions, including the use of two interpreters who alternate interpreting, be implemented for the physical health of sign language interpreters. According to the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), all sign language interpreters are at risk of developing some kind of Repetitive Stress Injury (RSI) during their careers, and if ignored, RSI can develop into a permanent disability… There are many things interpreters can do to prevent RSI and key among those is to work in teams…”

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) also has a Standard Practice Paper (SPP) that reads:

“Team interpreting is the utilization of two or more interpreters who support each other to meet the needs of a particular communication situation. Depending on both the needs of the participants and agreement between the interpreters, responsibilities of the individual team members can be rotated and feedback may be exchanged…”

As interpreters, we have two fundamental concerns: The quality of our service, and our career. Team interpreting is essential to protect them both.

If we want to be around, working at the highest level in our profession, we cannot agree to working conditions where team interpreting is not provided.  We cannot turn our heads the other way when an agency offers a lengthy job with the expectation of having one interpreter.

As always, there will be mediocre paraprofessionals who will accept these solo assignments, offered by bottom-feeder agencies, because these individuals are not qualified to work for those at the top.  Unfortunately, we will continue to see how, out of fear or cowardice, somewhat good interpreters will provide their services to government agencies and direct clients whose only priority is to pay as little as possible without regard for the quality of the job.

The formula to success is the same one we apply all the time: Without wasting our time on the (hopeless) usual interpreter abusers, we need to educate our direct clients, government officials, and reputable interpreting agencies.  We need to explain to them the value of team interpreting and we must show them the difference. Those with a brain will buy the team interpreting concept immediately.

It is extremely important that we stop working for those who insult us with solo assignments, even after we explained to them the value of not working alone.  We cannot make any exceptions. I am never offered a conference assignment without team interpreting, and all federal courthouses in the United States where I have interpreted have always provided team work for trials and long hearings.

It is true that every now and then I get a phone call from an agency offering me a deposition, but it is also true that if I ask them about team interpreting, and they say that it is a solo assignment, I always turn them down.  Remember, you do not need many clients, you just need good ones.

I hope that next time that a court interpreter coordinator or an agency representative contacts you for a lengthy assignment and asks you to work alone, you will explain the reasons why that is not a wise decision, and if necessary, you will quote the position papers and standards mentioned above, I hope you will succeed in changing the mindset of those who as of today ignore these basic aspects of our profession.

I also hope that when you sincerely try as hard as you can, and you fail to convince that individual sitting across the table, or at the other end of the telephone line, you will have the professional attitude to walk away with dignity and turn down their job offer.  I now invite you to share with us your personal experiences with team interpreting.

Are the interpreters working conditions in danger?

April 21, 2014 § 7 Comments

Dear colleagues:

A few days ago a colleague contacted me to ask if I had seen the updated United States Federal Court Interpreter Orientation Manual and Glossary. Although I do not exactly know how long ago this version came to be, my answer was that I had not. She asked me to take a look and then tell her my opinion. I read the publication from beginning to end. The first thing I noticed was that some extremely qualified colleagues had been involved in this updating process. Then I read the publication. Most of the manual seemed to be well written and it looked like it covered most of the relevant points and situations that happen in federal cases. That is, until I got to Chapter 3(VII)(C) For your benefit as readers, I transcribe the applicable portion of the manual next:

“Federal Court Interpreter Orientation Manual and Glossary.

Chapter 3: Overview of Court Interpreting.

VII Interpreters in the Courtroom…

C. Number of Interpreters per Proceeding: Team/Tandem Interpreting.

       The number of interpreters may vary according to the type of proceeding and the number of defendants that require interpreter services. To mitigate the effects of interpreter fatigue, proceedings estimated to exceed four hours are often covered by two interpreters through team, or tandem interpreting. The passive interpreter should remain seated in close proximity to the active interpreter and refrain from leaving the courtroom for any significant length of time without good reason…”

Yes dear colleagues, it reads four hours.

For the past eighteen months or so, I have devoted a good part of my time to help and assist in the development of interpreting rules and policy for interpreters in different parts of the world. I have held talks, workshops, presentations and one-on-ones with many interested parties that are developing or restructuring interpreter working conditions and rules of professional performance; and I have done it driven by two priorities: (1) To provide an excellent service and (2) To protect interpreters so they are able to fulfill priority number one.

I have sat in meetings and presentations where I heard of countries where government offices and private agencies require interpreters to work alone when interpreting consecutively regardless of the duration of the assignment; I have heard how individuals in decision-making positions question the need for team interpreting in small conferences or in legal settings. I heard it all and I heard it over and over again. You must know then, that one of the things that kept me going, and gave me the moral authority to dispute the rules or policy with real scientific arguments and data, was the knowledge that in the United States all reputable conferences, the federal judicial system, and many state-level courthouses, were honoring and following the principles of team interpreting and interpreters switching roles from active to support (passive) every 30 minutes or so. Now you can imagine my reaction when I read Chapter 3(VII)(C) above.

Dear friends and colleagues, as many of you know, scientific studies have demonstrated that mental fatigue sets in after approximately 30 minutes of interpreting. These studies show how the quality of the rendition is compromised when an interpreter, regardless of his capacity and skill, continues to interpret beyond this 30 minute marker. Even when the interpreter who has been working for a long period of time thinks that his rendition is accurate, it is not, according to a study by the University of Geneva’s Translation and Interpretation School (“Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress.” Moser-Mercer, B. Kunzli, B. & Korac, M. University of Geneva, École de Traduction et d’Interprétation. Interpreting Volume 3(1) p. 47-63. John Benjamins Publishing Co.) Jesús Baigorri Jalón tells us that “…an average of 30 minutes of consecutive work was the maximum time during which a satisfactory (interpretation) could be done; after this time, one runs the risk of deteriorating results due to fatigue…” (“La Interpretación de conferencias: el nacimiento de una profesión. De París a Nuremberg”. Editorial Comares, Granada. P.188)

Recognizing this well-documented issue, and as part of its tradition of excellence and professionalism, the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) clearly indicates in article six of its Professional Standards:

“Article 6…

  • *An interpreter shall not, as a general rule, work alone in a simultaneous interpretation booth, without the availability of a colleague to relieve her or him should the need arise.
  • **One of whom must be able to relieve each of the other two. In certain circumstances this number may be reduced to two (particularly for short meetings or meetings of a general nature, provided that each of the two interpreters can work into both languages)…”

This is also contemplated within the Sign Language interpreter community. The ASL Team Interpreting Guidelines state the following:

“…Interpreting assignments one hour or longer in length with continuous interpreting, will require the use of a team of two interpreters. The teaming allows the interpreters to switch roles every 15-20 minutes. Teaming will reduce physical strain, prevent repetitive strain injury, and prevent mental fatigue which can cause the quality of the interpreting to deteriorate…”

The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) issued a position paper on this particular issue, and their study concludes that:

“…Due process rights are best preserved with faithful simultaneous interpretation of legal proceedings… In a controlled study it was shown that interpreters’ work quality decreases after 30 minutes. In the challenging courtroom environment, team interpreting ensures that the comprehension effort required to provide accurate interpretation is not compromised. To deliver unassailably accurate language service, court interpreters work in teams…” (NAJIT Position Paper. Team Interpreting in the Courtroom. March 1, 2007)

Even Wikipedia is aware of the complexities of interpreting and the need for team interpreting when it says:

“…Because of the intense concentration needed by interpreters to hear every word spoken and provide an accurate rendition in the target language, professional interpreters work in pairs or in teams of three, so that after interpreting for twenty minutes, the interpreters switch…” (Wikipedia)

As we can clearly see, the fact that team interpreting is required to do this job, and that those in the team need to switch roles every 30 minutes or so is undisputed. This is why several countries that due to globalization are just starting to use interpreting services more often than before, are adopting the team interpreting principle; most of them agreeing to a 20-30 minute policy for interpreters to switch roles. It cannot be possible that the United States federal judiciary got it wrong. There is no way that these updated rules are telling the professional community (interpreters, judges and attorneys) and society at large (litigants, victims, experts, etc.) that the policy will take us backwards. I just do not believe that is what our government wanted to do.

This all leaves us with two possibilities then: Either the rules are poorly written, and that is why we got this confusion, of the rules committee made a mistake. If it was a mistake, it should be corrected immediately. If the rule refers to something else, it should be re-written to make it clear. As part of my research for this article, I heard that the rules were updated because of the arrival of telephonic interpreting. If that is the case, the language must be amended to show that this rule is meant to apply to telephonic hearings. Then, after they do that, we will have to argue that telephonic hearing also needs team interpreting, but that would be another battle for another day.

Dear colleagues, I know that each judicial district sets its own rules, in fact, I am privileged to work in districts where the team interpreter rule is honored and enforced. I am aware of the fact that these rules will probably not change the way most districts operate; however, they are there, and someone can use them in the future to damage the service and hurt the profession. The rule needs to be amended immediately. Many of us will never work alone. Many of us will demand a team, but there could be new colleagues, greedy ignorant language service agencies, and inept court administrators who may be tempted to use them as an excuse to try to change policy. They would fail. They would lose. They would disappear, but I ask you: Why do we have to fight that battle (again) when all that needs to be done is to amend the manual. Please share your thoughts on this issue with the rest of us.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with active interpreter at The Professional Interpreter.