At its latest meeting on August 25, the Court Interpreter Advisory Panel (CIAP) of the Judicial Council overwhelmingly approved two draft Rules of Court containing discipline procedures for court interpreters. BACI and CFI both spoke against the proposed rules as written, citing the dire consequences the overly broad rule could have for interpreters. Additionally, BACI said it could not support a rule which allows for discipline of interpreters, yet provides no process or protection for interpreters who are banned from courts without cause.

Furthermore, the new proposed rules of court represent yet another case of interpreters being subjected to serious consequences for any violation of the numerous rules enacted by the Judicial Council, while the courts blatantly ignore the law and suffer no sanction. The courts routinely ignore currently existing rules of court which require the courts to conduct a due diligence search before hiring a non-certified interpreter, to report on the use of non-certified interpreters and to find good cause on the record before allowing a non-certified individual to interpret. Yet the courts remain immune from any enforcement of these rules of court.

BACI and CFI object to the discipline procedures because interpreters have not been allowed an equal voice in the creation of the rules which could result in an interpreter losing his or her certification or registration.

Proposed Rule of Court 984.5 ("Discipline of Court Interpreters") defines the range of activities that can result in the discipline of certified and registered interpreters. Rule 984.6 mirrors 984.5 and includes grounds for discipline of non-certified and non-registered interpreters. Most troublesome about Rule 984.5 is its overly broad nature which defines the grounds for discipline as a "...violation of rule 984.4 (excludes continuing education compliance), or violation of any rule, standard, or code provision specifically governing interpreters..." While interpreters generally support the spirit of rule 984.4 - Professional Conduct for Interpreters - the rule allows much room for interpretation. And when an interpreter's keeping his certification or registration balances upon such broad rules, we see danger.

For instance: Rule 984.4(b) calls for a complete and accurate interpretation and instructs the interpreter to interpret everything that is said during the proceeding.

Interpreters agree this is our responsibility, but what happens when the bilingual attorney files a complaint with the Judicial Council against an interpreter because he doesn't agree with the interpreter's interpretation? Rule 984.4(f) instructs interpreters to maintain impartial, professional relationships with all court officers, attorneys, jurors, parties and witnesses. Will interpreters be subjected to complaints of non-professional behavior for interrupting a trial to request a break (when there's no team interpreting, yet again) and for insisting on other conditions necessary to perform our job? Interpreters who stand up for ethics in the courtroom are far too frequently defined as interpreters who cause "trouble".

According to the discipline procedure, anyone can file a discipline complaint against the interpreter. The Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) of the Judicial Council will investigate the complaint, and they assure us unmerited complaints will be dismissed - but they are resistant to more narrowly defining grounds for discipline, insisting interpreters put their faith in Judicial Council staff. However, we all know that especially in matters of language, issues are not cut and dried - which may take the accused interpreter to the next step in the process. If probable cause is found by a five-person review panel, the case can proceed to a hearing and the interpreter can bring an attorney - all at the interpreter's expense.
The panel reviewing the interpreter's case is appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Council and consists of three interpreters (at least one from the CIAP and one court administrator from the CIAP). Although the proposed rule now contains some due process protections for interpreters, it will be submitted to other committees of the JC which will likely make the rule even less palatable to interpreters.

Rule 984.5 would also include conviction of a crime that is "substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of an interpreter, or that involves dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude" as grounds for discipline. Further, it would require all certified and registered interpreters to notify the AOC of any criminal conviction ever, whether a misdemeanor or felony. Again, the rule seems overreaching and could potentially include convictions many years old that bear little relation to interpreting.

After going through other Judicial Council Committees, the rules will be sent out for public comment and eventually the AOC will present a recommendation to the Judicial Council for passage. AOC staff cites Senate Bill 1304 (1994) which calls for development of discipline for interpreters as the impetus for the proposed discipline procedures. BACI believes the SB1304's mandate can be better fulfilled through collective bargaining which would allow interpreters to negotiate discipline procedures with the JC.