Legal interpreting could be the polar opposite of illegal interpreting, except it isn’t. Loosely speaking, it’s the opposite of creative translation, like poetry and literature, but then that isn’t exactly true either, because often you do have to get rather creative in legal contexts, but not to the point of losing meaning or essence.
So, what is legal interpreting, exactly? Well, the word is rather self-evident: it’s any kind of interpreting (oral translation, if you will) in legal contexts. This could be a court hearing or trial, as well as an examination under oath or a deposition (both are testifying under oath outside of court, but the latter happens when a lawsuit is already underway). Legal interpreting also occurs at client-attorney meetings, during police interrogations, etc. – it is any interpreting done in the legal context, in or out of court.
This could include criminal law, family law, civil or business law, and so on. While immigration law is also legal interpreting, technically, it is different enough that it deserves an article all of its own.
The Difference Between Legal Interpreting and Other Settings
Legal Interpreting still follows the basic principles of interpreting but has its own canons as well.
All the usual modes (styles) are still used, like simultaneous interpreting, as well as consecutive and sight interpreting.
Therefore, court interpreters must be versed in these modes and take an exam that thoroughly tests them.
However, the school of legal interpreting is a tinge different from other approaches. For example, in business or motivational contexts, the emphasis is often on conveying the speaker’s mood, even acting up a bit, and precision – while clearly crucial – sometimes takes a secondary role. In court interpreting, precision is king while emotions make a cameo appearance at best.
In diplomatic interpreting, the linguist might correct his or her principal’s factual error – for example, if someone says: “When the Revolutionary War commenced in the 19th century…”, a clever interpreter would change it to “18th” without asking.
In diplomacy, this deserves a pat on the back, while in legal interpreting, such a change would be either a major blunder or an ethical faux pas.
The governing rule in legal interpreting is: “Do not alter, omit, or add anything,” and especially factual information – after all, factual information often corroborates or negates a witness’s testimony or speaks to their truthfulness or lack of it. Don’t get me wrong, precision is key in any interpreting and translation context, but in legal interpreting, it comes to the forefront.
TO CONSULT ABOUT LEGAL INTERPRETING, PLEASE GET IN TOUCH
In fact, immigration officers frequently test petitioners for truthfulness, as do police investigators and attorneys, and any contradictions are red flags. Now, imagine if that contradiction was the interpreter’s fault – this simply must not happen.
The court interpreter carries a very high responsibility – after all, the person’s fate is being decided there and then, to a lesser or greater degree. I’ve worked on various high-stakes cases (felonies) like drug trafficking, rape, and homicide, and I’m very glad that I have extreme confidence in my ability: when I would hear the verdict, I always knew that my interpreting was up to par. But not only felonies are important – a family case or even a small claims case is always important enough to render the best possible interpretation.
We usually have our own thoughts and opinions about the justness or unjustness of the case (and it is quite important that those thoughts stay in the province of the interpreter’s mind and don’t leak out!). So, if the interpreter considers the case just, they know they helped the workings of justice. If the linguist considers the case unjust, then at least they know it was not their fault. So, it is important for the outcome of the case, for the justice system as a whole, but also for one’s professional pride and integrity!
While the same modes of interpreting are used, even here, there are slight differences. For example, the consecutive interpreting performed in court is usually done in shorter segments than in diplomacy, but probably contains more factual information per unit of time. For example, diplomatic interpreters are expected to render segments of up to seven minutes. This would never happen in court, but a 30-second segment might contain a plethora of information on how the accident happened:
“While heading south on 55 West right by Cedar Lake Parkway, I signaled a change of lanes, planning to make a U-turn at the Highway 100 light, but this idiot in a navy blue rusty truck, or maybe SUV, or whatever the hell it was, rear-ended my right rear light, so my trunk popped, and all the Christmas toys I was taking to Salvation Army on Hennepin and Franklin were strewn over the highway.”
See the difference?
Clearly, legal terminology is used in legal contexts, so all modes of legal interpreting will involve the use of such terminology, and the interpreter must be versed in these terms.
This does not mean that an interpreter must be a lawyer or judge or have the same conversance with legal terminology as they would (though experienced court interpreters might come close). It means that the interpreter must have a very solid foundation on legal basics, procedures, and terms, and be able to sort out unknown terms quickly.
For example, if the interpreter cannot tell you the difference between a stay of adjudication, stay of imposition, and stay of execution, if they do not know what an omnibus hearing is (no, it’s not a chat on the double-decker buses in the UK!), then all I can say is “Hmm…”.
In court interpreting, the rule of clarifying terms (or any unclear idea) is even more vital, as a misinterpretation can change the course of a trial. For example, the author of this article (me, a court-certified interpreter in various states) once changed his interpretation (on the record) from “make amends” to “repent”: this was a minute difference, and it was highly unlikely that this would affect the trial, but better safe than sorry. Curiously, the prosecutor and the defense attorney both went rather tense when I said, “Your Honor, the interpreter would like to fix his interpretation for the record.”
FOR A CONSULTATION ON YOUR LEGAL INTERPRETING NEEDS, PLEASE DON’T HESITATE TO REACH OUT
Who May Perform Legal Interpreting?
In courts and for depositions or examinations under oath, only court-certified interpreters are allowed to work – in the vast majority of cases. If, for some reason, certified interpreters are not available, then otherwise approved interpreters (often called “roster interpreters”) may do the work. This is the way it works in the US, at least in most states. (For some rare or “exotic” languages, there is no certification process, and otherwise qualified interpreters are used).
A roster interpreter has not passed the court exam but has taken an ethics workshop and has somehow proven they have some degree of linguistic competence (diploma, etc.). Some states also have degrees of certification, like master interpreter – this depends on the percentage received on the test.
The best practice, of course, is to use fully certified court interpreters, but – unfortunately – even that is not a guarantee of perfect precision: for example, if an interpreter has passed the exam but does not continually practice or keep up their skills, then they will get rusty like any musician, athlete, chess player, etc. Alas, I have seen this happen, and it is a rather sad sight.
When going to court, a defendant, witness, or lawyer often does not have a pick in who will be the interpreter. Though if the interpreter is not delivering up to par, a lawyer could theoretically motion to remove them, but this rarely happens.
However, in private settings like depositions and other meetings, clients and lawyers do have a choice. My recommendation is to inquire about testimonials, current practice, and so forth. There is nothing wrong with tactfully “vetting” interpreters as so much depends on them. The first question should never be “How much do you charge?” (clearly, important), but rather “When was the last deposition you interpreted?” or “Would you happen to have a testimonial from a lawyer you’ve worked with?”
So, not all court-certified interpreters are “created equal.” However, to some degree, it is still a seal of quality: after all, anyone who passes the test cannot be outright “bad,” and most court interpreters are quite good.
In court itself, as well as for depositions and examinations under oath, certified interpreters are required. This is not always the case for other legal contexts. However, it is still the best practice to invite court-certified interpreters because, on average, they will be considerably better than non-certified interpreters. I’ve seen immigration cases get rejected because of misinterpretation.
In fact, translation agencies and business companies often use the certified interpreter roster to find candidates for their jobs, even when not legal.
In the United States, there is no other “quality guarantee” that I know of besides the court interpreting certification, except, perhaps, the Department of State Certification or a diploma from a prestigious school like Middlebury. Alas, not all degrees in interpreting and translation mean the person can actually perform the job – there is a difference between studying physical education and being able to run a 4:30 mile. It is great when someone has a theoretical grounding in translation and interpreting, but the question is: can they perform it?!
DON’T BE SHY TO GET IN TOUCH TO TALK ABOUT YOUR INTERPRETING NEEDS
Ethics for Legal Interpreting
Court and legal interpreters are governed by a certain Code of Ethics in the performance of their (our) work. These codes vary slightly from state to state in the US, but the gist is very much the same.
This Code involves things like:
- Interpreting precisely without omitting, adding, or altering
- Never misrepresenting your qualifications and not taking on cases if you’re doubtful you can perform. This also means refusing cases where there is a real conflict of interest and alerting the court (or other parties) if there is a potential conflict
- Staying impartial, not taking sides or fraternizing with the parties but still communicating courteously and tactfully to the degree needed to perform one’s duties
- Immediately reporting impediments to performance, be they technical (like sound quality) or personal (like someone asking for favors)
- Continually polishing one’s linguistic and interpreting skills
This is not an exact quote of the court or legal interpreting code, but a rather good summary. These principles also apply to legal interpreting out of court, though they may be less strictly enforced.
It is important to note that these same principles do not always translate directly to other contexts, like business, escort, or diplomatic interpreting. The diplomatic or business interpreter is very much representing their principal or client, so they actually are taking sides – naturally, this does not mean they would interpret incorrectly or show any animosity or discourtesy to the other side. The interpreter is still a messenger, a conduit of communication, but the context is different. As discussed earlier, in contexts other than legal, the interpreter sometimes can (and should!) correct faux pas and “misteks” made by the speaker. It takes solid judgment to know when to do so and when not to, but in legal interpreting – never.
Legal Interpreting: Summary
Legal interpreting is still very much interpreting, but a very specific school and breed. Just like in chess, a classical game and a blitz game still follow the same principles, but the strategy might differ.
Court and legal interpreting require immaculate precision, which means the interpreter must be knowledgeable and trained, as well as diligent about upkeeping their skills, and ethical to the utmost degree.
Legal interpreting is a strict yet fun setting, which is highly responsible yet also very rewarding. For example, there can be no better compliment for a legal interpreter than hearing from an attorney who speaks both of your languages something along the lines of: “Gosh, you’re good!” (Actual occurrence in my career after interpreting the first 30 seconds of the deposition).
Long story short, please only work with professionals in your legal and other interpreting needs.
For a free consultation on legal (or any) interpreting,
Legalistically yours,
Vladimir