02 Oct If I Had the Ear of an Attorney or Judge for One Hour
When the topic comes up among my colleagues of discussing our work as interpreters with lawyers and judges, they unanimously and enthusiastically agree that we have a lot to tell them. The following is the gist of what I would say upon such an opportunity.
I would start out with the basics: Translation is all transfer of meaning from one language to another. Interpreting is the oral translation of language. There are three modes of interpreting: simultaneous, consecutive, and sight translation. The simultaneous mode is the most prevalent in court. The interpreter must verbally, or signing, translate everything that is said in a proceeding from the language of the court into the language of the limited-English-proficient (LEP) court user. Although the translation is not literal, it must capture every feature of the original utterance. The consecutive mode is used for question-and-answer exchanges, attorney-client interviews and witness examination being the most frequent settings. The interpreter must usually take notes as a crutch to preserve the original message in her consecutive delivery. Sight translation is a hybrid form of interpreting in which the interpreter orally or through signs translates a written document into the target language. This mode is used mainly when an LEP litigant needs to understand a document in English or if the court needs to understand a document written in a language other than the court’s language of record.
Interpreting is an extremely complex task requiring mastery of many subskills, such as the ability to listen, translate, speak, and monitor the rendition at the same time; native or near-native command of both working languages (at least at the level of two years of college or higher[1]); an expansive vocabulary in a wide variety of topics; resourcefulness to find translation solutions for novel words and concepts; excellent diction; and the ability to work well under stress, among many others. Interpreters must also be constantly studying new words, concepts, and subject matters.
This goes to my next point: although there are brilliant individuals who are practically born interpreters, this is by no means the norm. You may be born with the potential to interpret, but interpreting is a skill acquired by much practice, study, and dedication to be constantly improving. While there are probably relatively few people in the U.S. who possess sufficient command of two languages to be able to become an interpreter, many fewer will actually become one. I believe this is because the road to mastering this profession is often hard to navigate, the process requires high perseverance, and the associated economic incentives often fall short.
Lawyers do their clients (and others) a great disservice by using non-interpreters to perform this highly specialized task. Interpreting is the most crucial element in bridging language barriers in court and being able to do it requires much preparation and experience. Using the daughter or the wife of a criminal defendant to interpret for the attorney and client is unreliable and may raise ethical concerns. One is the lack of impartiality, another is accuracy, and yet another is the huge burden it imposes on the family member. Research has shown that this act often causes lifelong traumas for the children of LEPs.[2]
Another way of doing LEPs a disservice is by not using team interpreting in proceedings that last over a half hour to forty-five minutes. Studies show that beyond the half hour mark, interpreters progressively make more and more mistakes. The “fabulous” interpreters who claim they never need a partner say so because they become so fatigued that they lose the ability to monitor their own performance. Besides the fact that interpreting with no rest for more than 45 minutes places an excessive cognitive demand on the interpreter, it can also have the unintended consequence of making a mockery of the justice LEPs are entitled to receive. It may even be as bad as having no interpreter at all because, in addition to the inevitable omissions, it may also introduce false and confusing information.
Interpreters need crystal clear sound to do their job adequately. If an interpreter is working in the simultaneous mode and the source utterances are not clear, the interpreter may become delayed in her rendition to the point of losing the thread, while the source language speech continues. Interpreters cannot interpret anything and everything you throw at them. If the source utterance is too fast, it will surely give rise to inaccuracies. Of course, the best interpreters can interpret very fast, but all it takes is one word the interpreter has to think about for an extra nanosecond to cause inaccuracies or omissions. We are not machines.
Also, be mindful that the interpreter has to be adept in the proceeding’s subject matter . If she is not interpreting it every day, she must study it. An “order to show cause,” “prosecution by information,” and “cross-grand jury notice” are not necessarily intuitive concepts that will roll off your tongue in the target language. Interpreters have to research.
Interpreters have an ethically complex job. It may be easy for interpreters to abstain from giving legal advice, but their daily experiences are fraught with ethical dilemmas. Giving an LEP litigant directions to the nearest subway stop is not a dilemma for me. Emphasizing to them on my own initiative the importance of coming back to court during their case is already more dubious. Giving my “reading” of their client to an attorney after their first interview, even more so. (“What’s his issue?”) The existing ethics training for interpreters has often fallen short because it evidently shies away from controversial issues that could present legal liabilities. In short, lawyers, judges, and interpreters should be in ongoing dialogue to facilitate the judicial process.
[1] NCSC. “Court Interpreter Resources.” NCSC, February 13, 2019. https://www.ncsc.org/education-and-careers/state-interpreter-certification.
[2] Pandya, Nishant. “Why We Shouldn’t Ask Kids to Interpret for Their Parents.” Children’s Hospital Association, October 26, 2023. https://www.childrenshospitals.org/news/childrens-hospitals-today/2023/10/why-we-shouldnt-ask-kids-to-interpret-for-their-parents.
Leonard Morin is a state and federally certified Spanish interpreter and a staff interpreter at Manhattan Criminal Court. He previously worked as a freelance translator and interpreter from 2004-2015. Leonard interprets Spanish and translates chiefly legal documents from Spanish, Dutch, and German into English. He served as a Delegate and subsequently as Court Interpreter Chapter Chair of Local 1070, District Council 37, of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the union that represents court interpreters in New York City’s state courts. Prior to that, he served separate terms as president and secretary of the New York Circle of Translators. He earned a propedeuse degree in law in the Netherlands and graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in Latin American Studies from Columbia University, where he won the 2004 Dr. Antonio G. Mier Prize for Excellence in Spanish and a Certificate in Recognition of Outstanding Achievement in the Study of German Language and Literature. Leonard also obtained certificates from the University of Arizona Court Interpreter Training Institute and the Southern California School of Interpretation. He has published numerous articles about translation, interpreting, and the T&I industry. Contact: leonard.morin@gmail.com
This is a great article and should clarify for non-interpreters how demanding our job is., It also stresses the pitfalls of using family members or friends as interpreters.
Before becoming an interpreter, I worked as a Social Security Claims Representative in the Bronx. In one office, employees had the habit of selecting “volunteers” from the audience to work as interpreters for other peoples’ cases. This backfired on them when the ‘interpreters’ waited outside the office one day and demanded money of the other parties for having served as their interpreters. This finally stopped the practice.
Excellent summary of our task!
Excellent communication for which I thank you!
Great article, Leonard! I would have used “aid” rather than “crutch” to describe note-taking. And in this AI day and age, saying that “we are not a machine” may be viewed by some as a liability (although, I think it might be worth dedicating some time in a future article to explain why it’s really an asset). I think your article is a useful synopsis of our work to keep handy as a client education tool. Thank you for contributing it!
Well said friend, our line of work is a continuous progression and this keeps it interesting for me, I’m sure you all have something you agree learning constantly too.
Excellent article! Thank you for writing it. Like Jason, I clenched my teeth for a split second when I read “we are not machines” because at a recent conference, we were discussing the tremendous improvements in machine-based interpretation. I, too, wonder whether this could be somehow used against us, although I firmly believe the human element is irreplaceable. As a conference interpreter (also), I would love to borrow some of your ideas, Leonard, to convey to our clients in other, non-judiciary fields, what we do and the importance of providing a proper environment for effective interpreting.
Can I frame this one and give it as a present to all the judges I work with daily?
THANK YOU!
Thanks, everyone, for your comments! My policy has been not to mention AI or machine translation although I know it will come up. AI is a threat to us, but it would also entail a whole new set of problems that are hard to foresee ahead of its actual implementation. I think the fact that our job is already ethically very complex would be the biggest problem for AI. In short, even though AI is progressing at a dizzying speed, I think it has to be approached with great care.
Outstanding article, Leonard! It can be used to be distributed among attorneys, their LEP clients and some judges. Thank you very much for writing this article.
On the subject of working with partners during assignments over 30 minutes long, I can say that it is a struggle when I receive the answer “we don’t have the budget for that, the LEP can hardly pay for one interpreter”. Does any of you encounter this situation? What do you do?
Thanks for you comments, Edith! As far as being refused a partner for longer proceedings, I think it still continues to be a struggle in many cases. Where I work as a staff interpreter, they always give us a partner in trials, but it didn’t used to be that way. At the very least, I would ask for lots of breaks. If there are opportunities to advocate concertedly with other colleagues, that can be helpful. Very few of the cases where I work go to trials these days. I don’t think I would be able to last very long somewhere where I regularly had to do trials, especially long ones, alone. Unfortunately, right here in New York, there is a growing shortage of interpreters. It leads to backbreaking working conditions in many of the courts.