Many Interpreters Don’t Understand the Value of the Service They Provide.

Dear Colleagues,

When interpreters you never heard of take to social media, even LinkedIn, to talk about their many RSI assignments, bragging about how they work long hours at odd times of the night, just to be “congratulated” by others doing the same thing, and by people known for hiring interpreters for little pay and poor working conditions, and next you look at what our European Parliament colleagues are doing, you must conclude it is admirable, and worthy of our full support.

These brave interpreters are fighting to protect their health and to work under the conditions previously agreed to, but they are also fighting for the profession. If an institution like the Parliament gets away with violating a collective agreement, and resorts to hiring cheap interpreters, even from places outside the Union, all other interpreters will be next. Those of us who mainly work in the private sector, and as individual contractors with some institutions, must understand that the rules broken somewhere else, and the disregarded agreements, will happen in our market not long from now. These are some of the reasons why we should all support our EP colleagues; but there is another reason we should admire them, respect them, and use them as an inspiration and role model: They understand the value of the service they provide, and they use it as a tool to protect the profession.

It is funny how at the same time these colleagues are fighting this battle, many others have quit, decided not to act, or chose a strategy that does not let them negotiate as equals with those who impact their interpreting practice.

Recently, the court interpreters of an American State, who have been paid one of the lowest professional fees in America, and have not seen a fee raise or cost of living adjustment for years, asked for a $10 USD per hour fee increase, set a deadline for the authorities to respond, and threatened with a walk off if those dates were not observed and their demand for a raise was not honored. First, the action had a lot of support, it got precious media coverage locally and nationwide, but a few days later, after the State gave them questionable reasons, basically denying the raise and telling them they would “consider” their petition for the 2024 budget, despite the determination of some interpreters to go ahead with the walk off, most interpreters gave in and continued to work. They feared not being scheduled to work (for peanuts) anymore.

A few weeks ago, a nationwide association of judicial interpreters held a conference in the United States. Among the guests to speak about their successes on language access to the courts, an individual who has repeatedly lowered court interpreters’ work conditions in one of the States in America was scheduled to participate and praise the accomplishments of the program he is responsible for. I learned of this situation when an interpreter who works in that State reached me in Europe to share the news and to ask me why in my opinion that person had been invited to speak, despite his actions as an administrator which have resulted in leaving approximately 20 or so state-certified court interpreters (a considerable number in a small State like this one) out of work, because of his practice of hiring interpreters without a court certification, and interpreters from other States who work for a pay lower than the one State court interpreters must get paid.

I immediately suggested all interpreters in the State take this opportunity, when the interpreting universe of the United States is paying attention to this conference, to publicly denounce these practices for the world to know. In other words: to bombard the conference Twitter account with stories of how the practice of these government officials is not to observe court interpreter state policy, and to deny court work to those who complain. Even though this was a unique chance to pressure the State, except for a few colleagues, who I salute, the rest of the interpreters decided not to go to war with the State government to protect their profession. They feared retaliation and not being “called to interpret anymore”.

Finally, a few days ago I was asked to sign a petition to the authorities asking for a fee raise for a group of specialty interpreters in the United States. These are the only interpreters authorized to practice at this level; they are an elite group, and considered among the best in their field. Unfortunately, they are also known as the interpreter group that has not seen a raise, or cost of living adjustment in over 6 years. Even though I knew from the start I would sign the letter in solidarity with my colleagues (I rarely work in that system because they pay very little), I read the letter and was sad to see it was a very timid letter applying no leverage. My first reaction was: Why is a government agency that has not cared enough about its interpreters for so many years going to change policy after reading a letter with no teeth? Unlike the interpreters’ letter in the first case above, which at least had a deadline and a threat of strike, these federal court interpreters exercised no leverage. They put no pressure on the authorities.

The European Parliament interpreters showed us the value of our work. If the interpreters in other organizations or public service agencies stopped working, the system would be crippled. The authorities know this and know they would need to avoid such labor stoppage no matter what. All government agencies in the world operate within a budget and it takes time to modify it, but all government agencies in the world have additional emergency funds to be used to keep the government running. Had these interpreters exercised their leverage, their raises would be coming right now.

Interpreters everywhere must understand that communication among those who don’t share a common language is impossible without their services. They need to see there is a great demand for what we do elsewhere; that during the time of a stoppage they can interpret in other fields and venues, especially in these days of distance interpreting. The day most interpreters shake off their fears, doubts, and lack of confidence, and do as our European Parliament colleagues did, their fees and work conditions will finally be as they should. It is a matter of understanding they need us more than we need them.

Like President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “The only thing to fear is fear itself”.  

Attention interpreters: Butcher or Surgeon?

Dear Colleagues:

For many years I have devoted a considerable part of my time and efforts to promote, develop, and defend the professionalization of our interpreting services. There have been many times when I have been left with no other choice but to fight against the usual forces that tend to diminish, manipulate, and erode our profession:  Greedy agencies who want to hire anybody, regardless of skill, knowledge or qualification, if this move will translate into a greater profit; Ignorant clients who cannot see the difference between speaking a foreign language, and actually interpreting to and from it; Self-serving bureaucrats who care about nothing other than their petty jobs and the opinion of their superiors within their sad organization; and mediocre “wanna-be” interpreters who constantly try to lower standards and expectations in order to fit in the ocean of cynicism and falsehood where they swim portraying themselves as professional and apt individuals, disregarding the nefarious consequences that their devastating services will undoubtedly cause those for whom they “interpret”.

Interpreting is the oldest bilingual profession on earth, but its modern version is relatively new all over the world. Because of historical and empirical reasons, some fields of interpretation have developed faster than others, and for the same reasons they are better regulated, known, and respected by both individuals in the field of communication, and the population at large.  In some parts of the world interpreting services have been part of the legal process for centuries, and due to current tendencies, globalization and commercial relations among all nations, their services are among the better-known and more strictly regulated interpreting services.

In the United States, Europe, and many Latin American countries, oral adversarial legal proceedings and intense trade have produced the certified, licensed, qualified interpreter who has passed through some knowledge and skill assessment process, and complied with legal, ethical, and professional requirements. Many of them have the benefit of a formal professional education as interpreters, attorneys, or other law-related fields which allow them to learn and understand highly sophisticated concepts and the complexity of the legal process.  Because of the subject matter they have to work with, the magnitude of the consequences of those acts and proceedings they participate in as interpreters, and the legally established and sanctioned certification process to be able to work, these individuals are considered by the legislation not only professional service providers, but professionals of a specialized discipline: These interpreters practice legal interpreting.

It is important to keep in mind that not all legislation and systems are at the same developmental level, and even the most evolved ones are far from satisfactory; they do not cover all scenarios or proceedings yet, but they constitute a series of steps in the right direction, and reflect the efforts of hundreds of interpreters, legal experts, administrators, activists, and others who have fought very hard to get to the place where we find ourselves now.

In the United States, interpreting services in a legal proceeding are constitutionally required in all criminal cases, and thanks to the Civil Rights Act, they are mandated in all other proceedings where the federal government is financially involved. There are currently several states that have also incorporated this essential service into their own legislation.

The nature of the services rendered by the interpreter in a legal context are professional as they are linked to the practice of the law by attorneys, judges and other officers of the court. Attorneys cannot practice law without a license, patent, or certification that allows them to present themselves as lawyers, and provide legal services such as advice and representation to their clients.  Judges have to meet many requirements to be able to do their jobs as well.  There is no doubt that it is for this reason that legal interpreters are required to be certified. Just as the attorneys, in the United States an interpreter can be certified at the state or at the federal level.

Attorneys, judges, and their interpreters deal with matters that can impact the life, freedom, pocket, or reputation of an individual. This makes them a very special group: They are subject to rules and canons no other professionals have to observe. It is so important, that nobody can practice law without first been admitted to the bar, (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/model-def/model_def_statutes.authcheckdam.pdf) and those who violate the law are subject to penalties that can go from a fine to the loss of freedom. It is a crime to practice law without a license (http://apps.americanbar.org/publicserv/immigration/notario/california.pdf). In the United States, with some exceptions that we are working to eliminate, court interpreters must have a certification or license to be able to provide their services in court when interpreting to or from a language that is part of that state’s certification program. Dear colleagues, this is extremely important, because it is an essential step in our road to full professionalization and recognition of the profession.

Court interpreter certification programs and legislation have a long, long way to go, but so far we have been moving in the right direction.

As an attorney, when I used to practice law, there were few things that bothered me more than to find out that a non-lawyer was practicing without a license and hurting people.  These individuals exist. They are out there, preying on the most vulnerable communities, among them, those who cannot speak the language of the country where they live. There have been many cases of “notarios” busted for practicing immigration law without a law license.  I applaud the efforts of the attorney bars and government agencies who are constantly looking for these predators.

I have not practiced law for a long time, and during all these years I have felt the same way every time I see someone who is not certified to interpret in a legal setting. Unfortunately, the response from professional associations and government authorities has not always been the same as in the case of “wanna-be attorneys”, but there has been progress.

That is why it really bothers me that some are trying to undermine this quest towards professionalization by diminishing the importance of the practice of legal interpreting and by proposing solutions that do not match the legal system philosophy nor satisfy the needs of the parties involved in a legal dispute.   Individuals moved by greed, ambition, or perhaps mere lack of knowledge of the practice of the law have suggested, and are trying to implement, the notion that “not all legal interpreting requires of a certified court interpreter”.  They have erroneously concluded that Article 1 courts do not need of the services of a certified court interpreter, and that many legal acts that involve attorneys and legal advice should be left to community interpreters who will have a different set of skills and a lack of knowledge of substantive and adjective law, including the rules of evidence.  In other words: instead of joining in our struggle to achieve excellency in all fields of legal interpreting by preparing, training, and certifying as many court interpreters as necessary, they have decided to set back our fight for professionalization by arguing that less-prepared interpreters will meet the requirements to practice in legal settings that are outside Article 3 courthouses.  They are playing a very dangerous game. Let me explain:

Currently in the United States only court proceedings before an Article 3 court are required to use the services of a certified court interpreter (if certification into that language is available) Article 3 courts are those that are part of the judicial branch or a government (federal or state). Unfortunately, as of today, Article 1 court proceedings do not require the services of a certified court interpreter (if certification into that language is available) at the federal level and in many states. Article 1 courts are those that are created not by the federal or state constitution, but by congress or a state legislature and are part of the executive branch of government (usually with a degree of independence). They are commonly known as “Administrative Courts”.  Some examples would include, at the federal level, Social Security Hearings and Immigration Courts (EOIR) and at the state level, the most common administrative courts are Worker’s Compensation Courts.  Articles 1 and 3 refer to the articles of the U.S. constitution.

Those in favor of de-professionalization of court interpreting by lowering the requirements needed to work in a legal setting argue that certification only exists for “court interpreting” and not for “legal interpreting” and that administrative courts are less formal than Article 3 courts. For this reason, certified court interpreters should not be necessary.  They also argue that many of the services provided by an attorney are more “community interpreter-related”, making community interpreters better equipped to assist the attorney’s client, as they are more apt to provide feedback to the attorney about cultural nuances than a court interpreter who is very rigid and strict due to the formal court setting training they receive. This is scary and far from the truth.

The first argument that administrative hearings are less formal than a hearing before an Article 3 judge are nonsense. It is true that the proceedings are more relaxed and not as rigorous in an administrative courtroom, but the rules of proceeding and evidence still apply. Attorneys and judges still argue the law, and legal theories are presented with pro and con arguments by the litigants.  Because of the complexity of all of this, and because of the importance of what is being decided, all those lawyers appearing before an administrative judge have to be admitted to practice law in the jurisdiction where they are providing their services.  A law student who does not pass the state bar is as barred from practicing law in an administrative court as he or she is in any court of the judicial branch of the government.  Administrative judges are also attorneys and receive special training to be judges.  Both, attorneys and judges are professionals; we are professionals too. Only certified court interpreters should be allowed to practice in administrative hearings. The complexity and sophistication of the issues before the court require of a professional specifically trained in the legal field to interpret. Nothing less in acceptable. How can somebody interpret something he or she does not understand?

The second most common argument is that current legislation does not require of a certified court interpreter for those legal services that happen outside the courthouse.  It is true that the current law is not clear in this regard, but that does not eliminate the need for a competent specialist who is familiar with the law and procedure.  The law clearly states that all services performed by an attorney that involve legal advice or practice must be provided by an individual authorized to practice law in the given jurisdiction.  Why is the law requiring a licensed attorney to discuss the case with a client, prepare a witness, or conduct a deposition? Because of the highly sophisticated concepts and terminology that will be used during the meeting. Only a certified court interpreter who knows and understands these topics can successfully and safely assist the attorney during these activities. Performing any of the above or similar acts by an individual not admitted to practice law in the jurisdiction is considered unauthorized practice of the law, and that is a crime. For the same reasons, a certified court interpreter should be used at all times.  To the argument that certified court interpreters are not prepared to be cultural brokers or advisors to the attorney in these settings because their training has been too formal and strict, all I can say is that, without putting anybody down, it is very likely that the certified court interpreter will do a better job at bridging this gap between the attorney and his client (not the interpreter’s) because they are usually more experienced and better interpreters than most community interpreters. Moreover, they will also detect cultural hurdles in the legal context that a community interpreter will not be able to notice because of his or her lack of legal knowledge and experience.  To affirm that certified court interpreters will not know how to act and assist the attorney they are working for is plain ignorance. Certified court interpreters know the difference between working as interpreters for the courts where they have to be impartial, and working for an attorney or law office where they are part of the defense, prosecutorial, or plaintiff’s team.  Add to that the fact that they will know the reach and exceptions to the client-attorney privilege in these settings, and the community interpreter will not, or at least will not understand well enough, even if they were just enounced during his training.

There are other paralegal situations and scenarios where a community interpreter can be used without jeopardizing a legal case.  Communications about logistics, social worker appointments, payment plans with the law office, and many others. The golden rule is that when the attorney’s professional service involves a court appearance (any court) an act with potential evidentiary effects (such as a police interview, a law office interview or preparation of a witness) or any occasion where the attorney will provide legal advice or practice law (such as a legal opinion in person or over the phone, or filling up a legal form) the attorney should always be assisted by a certified court interpreter (qualified or licensed depending on applicable legislation) The potential consequences and legal liability of ignoring this rule are enormous as they could impact the life, freedom, assets, or reputation of an individual or a company. When people retain an attorney they expect to see an attorney, they also expect to find a certified court interpreter by his or her side. When you are going to have an operation you want to see a surgeon, not a butcher.

Finally, the argument that the certification is only for “court” interpreting and not for “legal” interpreting, very popular among those who want to de-professionalize court interpreting, can easily be dealt with by remembering that our profession is a work in progress. There is much that we have accomplished in the legal interpreting arena, but there is more to be achieved, among other things, the expansion of certification programs to include testing of civil and administrative procedure. But even without these changes, certified court interpreters are constantly learning and training in all these fields through the continuing education requirements that are in place at the state level, and because of the professional market needs.  Attorneys do not graduate from law school knowing all fields of practice, they graduate knowing where to find what they need so they can learn and understand it applying the legal thinking process they learned in school. It is the same thing with certified court interpreters. As far as the words “court” and “legal” it is probably a better choice to refer to these professionals as certified legal interpreters, but that is just semantics.

Dear friends and colleagues, there is a long way to go, but much has been accomplished in the legal interpreting field. Our efforts should focus on elevating the quality of the profession, not diminishing it. There will always be those who oppose our professionalization, but let them be from outside the profession, not from within. We have to work together to increase the number of interpreters with academic background until it becomes the rule and not the exception; we should continue to encourage other professionals like lawyers, physicians, scientists, and others to join our profession when apt and qualified; we need to strengthen the quality of the certification programs, ideally taking them away from the government just like the attorneys’ bars; and we must demand more and better continuing education programs.

This is the only way to professionalization, full recognition and respect that will ultimately translate into a higher quality service for those in the justice system, and will produce a better income for our colleagues. I ask you to oppose the lowering of the standards and the de-professionalization of court interpreting by sharing this information with your colleagues, attorneys, attorney bars, judges, community activists, and anyone else who may help us defend our profession. I also think that professional associations such as the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) in the United States should prepare a position paper in this very important issue. Professional associations are there to protect their members and the profession. I now ask you to share your comments and opinions regarding this crucial issue that threatens our profession at this time.

Some judges foster the use of non-certified interpreters.

Dear colleagues:

Unfortunately this topic is not new to anyone. It seems like we have been listening to the same complaint for many years, but during the past few months I have heard and read enough disturbing stories to decide that it was my time to contribute my two cents to the defense of our colleagues:  the real professional court interpreters. Before I continue, I must clarify that this posting refers to Spanish language court interpreters.  I recognize that interpreters in other languages are in a different situation as they do not have a federal certification program in the United States.  That is an issue for a separate blog post.

I learned that there are federal district courts in the Southern and Midwestern States where the federal court interpreter certification is not “required” to interpret a hearing or even a trial.  I was told that there may be other federal courts elsewhere in the United States where they also follow this practice.  I have to confess that I have been very lucky to live and work in places where this has never been an issue. In fact, I live in a city where I have never even met non-certified court interpreters.  The Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois provides federally certified court interpreters for all of its cases.

The most common complaints that I have heard from certified interpreters is that these courthouses have clerks, administrators, and judges who don’t see the need to hire federally certified interpreters because they think they are too expensive, it is too difficult to get them, or because they are happy with the services provided by non-certified individuals who have been providing their “services” to these judges.    There is a federal district courthouse in the Midwest that hires one certified and one non-certified interpreter to work their trials.  Fortunately, most certified interpreters refuse to work under these circumstances. Unfortunately, this courthouse then hires two non-certified individuals. Their argument is that it is cheaper and the non-certified individual has a state court interpreter certification.  Another courthouse in the South routinely hires non-certified interpreters under the explanation that their judges like these non-certified individuals who have been doing “a good job” for many years.  There is a federal district court judge who states on the record at the beginning of a hearing that the Spanish speaker is being assisted by a certified interpreter, without giving opportunity to the federally certified court interpreter to enter her appearance on the record by clearly stating that she is federally certified.  This way the judge, intentionally or unintentionally (we don’t know) makes it impossible for the certified interpreter to separate herself from the non-certified individual.  In fact, because of this maneuver, I heard that some attorneys that have appeared before this judge for many years are shocked when they learn out of court that the “other” individuals appearing in court are non-certified.

I would like to think that most of these situations arise from the lack of knowledge among judges and court staff.  Many of them do not know the difference between a federally certified court interpreter (the ones who can appear in court) a state certified court interpreter, and non-certified individuals who just happen to accept assignments knowing that they are not supposed to.

For the benefit of some of you who might be reading this article, and with the hope that some of my colleagues may share the following information with judges, clerks, attorneys and others, I will touch upon some of the basic differences between a federally certified court interpreter and a state certified interpreter.

According to the Court Interpreter Act, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall establish a program to facilitate the use of certified interpreters in judicial proceedings instituted by the United States (28 USC § 1827) To fulfill this mandate, the United States AOC has developed a certification program that all Spanish interpreter candidates must pass to be certified. The certification program is administered in two parts: a written exam to test the true bilingualism of the applicant who has to pass (with a minimum score of 80) each of the two sections: English and Spanish. Those who pass this first stage must wait for a full year and then take the oral exam that consists of difficult exercises to test the examinee’s interpretation skills, legal terminology and comprehension, and language proficiency.  To pass this test a candidate must score a minimum of 80 on each of its 5 sections: sight translations from English into Spanish and Spanish into English, two simultaneous interpretations at very high speeds: one a monologue and one a dialog, and a lengthy and complicated consecutive interpretation.  Passing rates for this very difficult exam are among the lowest in any professional field.

A person can become state certified after meeting the requirements of that particular state. The format and minimum scores vary depending on the state. Some require a written test, others do not. Some offer a written test on the basics of the legal process, others require prove of bilingualism.  The oral test can be the same in different states as they all use the services of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) but the way the test is administered and graded is different from state to state. Some states let the applicant take the oral exam by parts (first the simultaneous exam and maybe months later the consecutive and sight)

Of the many differences between the federal certification program and the states’ programs, perhaps the most important are the content of the exam and the minimum scores required to pass it.  State exams have fewer sections than the federal test. They do not have a simultaneous interpretation dialogue, the simultaneous interpretation exercise is offered at a lower speed, the sight translation documents are not legal, but paralegal documents, and the subject matter of the exercises is based on topics that are under the jurisdiction of a state court.  The minimum score to pass a state certification exam is 70.  Some states allow that examinees retest only on those sections where they got a failing score.  The passing rate for the state court interpreter examination is far higher than the federal rate.  In fact, there are many state certified court interpreters who have repeatedly failed the written and oral federal certification examination.  As you can see, there is a significant difference between these certifications.  It is important to mention that for federal court purposes a state certified interpreter is a non-certified interpreter.

The federal court interpreter program exists because of a constitutional mandate. The VI Amendment of the United States Constitution states that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to… be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him… and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense…”  (Amendment VI. 1791)

The Court Interpreter Act clearly states that: “…Only in a case in which no certified interpreter is reasonably available as provided in subsection (d) of this section, including a case in which certification of interpreters is not provided under paragraph (1) in a particular language, may the services of otherwise qualified interpreters be used…”  [28 USC § 1827(b)(2)]

Looking at the statute you can easily conclude that the courts are obligated to seek the services of federally certified interpreters.  There were certified interpreters ready and able to work in all the cases I have mentioned in this article.  It was the clerk or the judge who preferred to use the non-certified individuals.

Even smaller federal district courts now have access to federally certified court interpreters through the federal judiciary’s Telephone Interpreting Program (TIP)  The TIP, available nationwide, allows an interpreter at a remote location to deliver simultaneous interpretation of court proceedings for defendants and consecutive interpreting for the court record by means of a two-line telephone connection.  This program has been very successful and has kept the highest quality of interpretation in the courtroom.

It seems to me that after reading this posting, all federally certified court interpreters who are ignored or passed over by a courthouse, and later find out that a non-certified individual has been hired to “interpret,” should be able to explain the legal reasons not to do so.  Unfortunately, sometimes this may not be enough. All federal judicial districts are independent. They make their own decisions. All federal district court judges are appointed for life.    When an explanation is not enough to change a bad habit, there are other means to achieve the desired results.

When faced with the situation above, the interpreter should talk to the defense attorney and express his concerns about the defendant’s constitutional rights being violated. The V amendment indicates that: “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (Amendment V. 1791) For a person to have due process there has to be legal representation. A defendant cannot participate in his defense unless he understands the charges against him and confronts his accusers. This is impossible if he cannot communicate with his attorney (See Amendment VI 1791 above)  It is important to make it clear to the defense attorney that because of this violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a due process, there are grounds for a dismissal, or at the least for an appeal, even before the trial takes place.

As far as the non-certified individual who is working at the courthouse, even with the blessing of a judge, there are several things that can be done: When the individual states that he is certified, or when the judge states on the record that this person is certified and the “interpreter” does not correct the record, there can be consequences if this person has a state certification.  This should be brought to the attention of the state agency that oversees the performance of state certified interpreters. This lack of moral character could be grounds for a suspension or even a revocation of the state certification. Remember, state certified court interpreters are (state level) officers of the court.

There are also certain things to be done when the individual does not have a state certification. If at the beginning of the hearing, or at any time during the process, this person was placed under oath or affirmation and indicated that he was certified, or even if he remained silent when the judge or the clerk put him under oath as a certified interpreter, he may have committed perjury or at least misrepresentation and therefore he could be prosecuted for this crime.   This individual could also be subject to other sanctions depending on the state where the act was perpetrated.  Practicing a profession without a license or certification could be a misdemeanor in some states. The person may be subject to jail time or at the least to a fine.

Finally, the non-English speaker defendant or his dependants may be able to sue the “interpreter” for damages caused by him as an individual who provided a service without having the certification to do so, and perhaps committing fraud or inducing the error at the time of celebration of the professional services contract. If the non-English speaker thought that this individual was certified, there was no “meeting of the minds” and therefore the contract wasn’t valid; this means that he can sue the “interpreter” for damages and he may not have to pay him for what he did. This is a good remedy for those who appear in court pro-se.

There are many resources to right a wrong. The first step should be to try to educate the bench and bar. I encourage you to speak before the defense bar and the assistant U.S. attorneys. Make sure the court knows that all these resources exist; that they can use TIP.  Always remember: you need to make sure they are aware that you know what is required, and that they know that you are willing to campaign for the use of certified interpreters in your district.  Please share with the rest of us your experiences with non-certified interpreters and what you did to fix the situation in your federal district court.

Big change to the way the federal court interpreter exam is rated in the U.S.

Dear Colleagues,

As I write this posting many of my friends, colleagues, and students are taking the toughest court interpreter exam in the United States: The federal court interpreter certification test. There are other court or legal exams given by government agencies at the federal and state level, and even the private sector has designed some interpreter exams, but no test is as demanding as the federal certification exam.  This week, just like one summer week every two years since the test has been in place, hundreds of Spanish-English interpreters: veterans, newly graduated, newcomers to the United States, and many others who previously passed the written test (at least one year earlier) are culminating months on study, practice and psychological preparation as they leave their hometown and travel to some of the largest cities in the country to have their skills  tested for some forty five minutes. During that period of time they will attempt to demonstrate that they are ready to interpret simultaneously, consecutively, and to sight-translate in the United States federal courts.

Within the profession it is very well known that this is not an easy exam; in fact, the passing rate of the attorney bar exam is substantially higher than the federal court interpreter certification test.  As someone who has gone through both exams I can even say that it is harder to get certified as an interpreter.  Traditionally there have been two systems to rate the examinee’s rendition: For many years the test was administered orally before a live jury of three certified interpreters who would rate the applicant’s performance.  Years later the system changed to a recorded test where the examinee would sit in a room with a proctor and record the rendition. Afterwards, the recording was reviewed by a team of three certified interpreters that would rate the performance based on the recorded material.  This year, for the first time ever, the renditions will be rated not by a jury of three certified interpreters, but by teams of two.

This change is as radical as the switch from a live oral test to a recorded one.  Generally in life we encounter all kinds of panels, juries, and other deliberation groups that consist of an odd number of members, and there is a reason for that configuration: You eliminate the possibility of a tie, you discard the scenarios where an even number of people can agree to one thing and at the same time another even number of people agree to another making a majority decision very difficult.  The odd number gives you unanimity or a tie breaker. In other words, it assures you that there will be a final decision. In the case of the federal court examination a final vote of 3-0 or 2-1.

The new system will no doubt result in many unanimous decisions of pass or fail, but there will be ties, and when the two raters cannot reach a consensus the exam will be sent to another panel who will rate it and decide.  The system seems fair, I am not so sure that it will be as quick and efficient as the 3-rater panel, but it seems like a reasonable solution to a tie.  I know many of the raters and as far as I can tell, an overwhelming majority have rated exams in the past; many of these interpreter-raters have scored tests under the two previous systems and most of them have demonstrated to be fair and capable.  I do not believe that this will make the exam easier or more difficult, I don’t know if this will make it more efficient, and I don’t know yet if this will make it as fair as it has always been in the past. Everything indicates that it will be fine, but to know for sure we have to wait and see. I will be carefully watching the outcome as I am interested to see not only if more people fail under this new system, but also if more people pass. Big changes one way or the other could be a symptom that something is not as it was before.  I give them the benefit of the doubt and today I assume that everything will be fine; it is just that a jury of two looks a bit strange.  Please share your thoughts on the test and this new rating system.

Something bad is happening with the federal courts in some states.

Dear Colleagues,

Not long ago I had dinner with some colleagues that work in the federal court system.  As it always happens with interpreters, we ended up talking shop.  Of course, as you all know, this is pretty standard in our profession; however, I was shocked by some of the comments I heard. I learned that despite the fact that the state has over 20 court certified interpreters, the federal courts in Colorado are now hiring non-certified interpreters for all services with the exception of court hearings; and that is not all, I also heard that the CJA attorneys are only approving vouchers for the time “actually worked” by the interpreter. Forget about the full day and half a day rates.  I also found out that, ignoring the fact that Chicago has around 15 certified court interpreters, the state of Indiana is hiring non-certified interpreters for hearings, and they are even pairing them with certified interpreters.  We all know that each district is its own world, and they set their own policy, but somebody told me that this is happening with the blessing of higher authorities.  This is worrisome.  I support the idea that if you want to like our profession for a long time, and if you want to make a good living, you need to diversify and interpret conferences, legal, medical, and everything else you can think of.

I oppose the position of some independent contractor colleagues who only see themselves as court interpreters and refuse to step outside the box; however, I am very fortunate to live in a place where the court only allows certified court interpreters,  but if what I heard is true, I am saddened and frustrated by this information because the certification exam is not easy, because there is a huge quality gap between the interpretation level of certified and non-certified court interpreters, and because the attorneys and judges are going along with the budget guys, giving up the quality of a certified court interpreter in order to save a few bucks.  I ask you to tell me if this is what is happening in your area, and if so, what in your opinion can be done to educate the defense bar, the federal bench, and the U.S. Department of Justice so they stop calling all these non-certified interpreters, and let me be very clear that when I say non-certified I am including the consortium certified interpreters because there is no distinction between them and those with another certification or without any certification, they are not certified to work in the federal system.  It is that simple.