Not all that long ago laws were changed that indicated that legal documents in a language other than english cannot be interpreted by just any old interpreter but they must be interpreted by a court certified interpreter. On the face of things, this wouldn’t be so bad except that cuts in court certified interpreter services are causing those court certified interpreters to leave the profession altogether. The domino effect is that many previously interpreted languages and local dialects have no certified court interpreters whatsoever. No certified court interpreters exist to interpret legal documents either. Now this law requiring a certified court interpretation made sense at a time when the courts were flush with money and could afford to retain interpreter services and interpreters. However, with budget cuts it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people to translate international legal documents which is causing California business to grind to a halt in numerous sectors where a California Certified Court interpreter is mandated.
No interpreter needed for this prank.
Recently one of JCW’s own tried to find a certified court interpreter to execute a real estate transaction and found out that no certified court interpreter exists for a particular Malaysian dialect here in California. The individual that recognized that dialect was a certified court interpreter, yet not certified for that particular language. That real estate transaction includes a will written in this Malaysian dialect that transfers the property from the deceased to the deceased persons wife. The wife sold the land but the buyer was unable to complete the real estate transaction because the will could not be interpreted by any certified court interpreter as none exists.
The county recorder continues to insist on a certified court interpreter to translate the documents in accordance with state law and the catch-22 is that no certified court interpreter exists, so it appears both our buyer and seller is screwed, having the real estate transaction lie in limbo. And in limbo is where it will likely stay as the seller has since passed away as well.
Out of the 38 million people in California there exists many people that can translate these documents. None of them is interested in becoming a certified court interpreter as that career path for most languages other than Spanish and some of the more prevalent Asian languages is becoming a dead end. Further cuts and certain RFP’s that are soliciting these services on a telephonic basis isn’t helping the profession at all. What it is doing is centralizing interpreting services for the purpose of conducting limited court business while abandoning a raft of languages that are not all that common in California. Business has been suffering as a result. Transactions cannot be executed. Documents cannot be interpreted as required by state law and certain defendants probably aren’t getting the day in court that they’re entitled to.
Since it appears that we as a people are unwilling to fund robust certified court interpreter services that cover all languages, perhaps the law must be changed to reflect reality for many of these languages. It makes some sense to require certified court interpreters where they exist and to permit exceptions to be submitted where no certified court interpreter exists. Since the AOC runs the certified court interpreters program, it should be incumbent upon the AOC to post those certified court interpreters by language and also identify those languages where no certified court interpreters exist. Legislators, if they are unwilling to fund a robust certified court interpreter program that serves all people in all languages should lift the certified court interpretation requirements for those languages where certified court interpreters do not exist. To do anything less is an injustice to all of the people.
What are your thoughts?
Been There
November 27, 2012
I think you are talking about two different specialties here: translators (who translate the written word) and interpreters (who use their language skills to interpret the oral testimony of witnesses between English and the witnesses’ primary non-English language).
In order to facilitate the court’s business, a certified court interpreter is qualified to translate a written document in a case before the court, but generally the court interpreter does not, perhaps cannot for ethical reasons — translate anything more than a short document, certainly no more than one or two pages.
Wills, real estate contracts, and business agreements are really something you would hire a translator for.
I am not sure if the AOC has a certification program for translators, but I doubt it. I think it more likely that the party needing a document translated has to pay someone to provide that service.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 27, 2012
While that may make sense, why would a county recorder reject a translation because it was not performed by a court certified interpreter and cite a law?
More information: The entire will and accompanying certificate of death were each just one page, for a total of two pages.
More info yet: The language cited is none of 15 languages where certification is possible, nor is it cited as a registered language. Talk about catch 22….
http://www.courts.ca.gov/3796.htm
Been There
November 27, 2012
I would suggest talking with a representative of one of the court interpreter organizations for clarification. The underlying concern of the county recorder is accuracy — is the English translation accurate? It was the scandalous incompetency of “court interpreters” as disclosed by the San Jose Mercurry News that led to the legislation requiring certification of those who interpret in the courts for those whose primary language is not English.
Not knowing which law was cited by the county recorder makes the situation unclear.
And there are a limited number of languages for which interpreters are certified in California.
Interpreter certification requires a test; development of a test is incredibly expensive, so states can only develop very few tests and generally select languages with the greatest need based on state demographics.
Long story short: the county recorder may be demanding a “certified” court interpreter for a language for which no certification is offered in California. Talk about a catch-22!!!
unionman575
November 27, 2012
A “certified” catch 22 indeed JCW.
TheInterpreter'sHere!
January 10, 2013
Ok, I’m late to the conversation, but I’m a representative of one of the interpreter organizations. The law *does* require that documents submitted to the “county” must be translated by either an ATA certified translator or a certified court interpreter. (GC 27293) Been There is right, they are two different professions and shouldn’t have been conflated in the law. There was an attempt to correct the error through legislation but it died in some committee somewhere. In the meantime, the law allow for interpreter of languages that don’t have certification to become “Registered” interpreters — which is the equivalent of certified as far as the legal requirement.
unionman575
November 27, 2012
Next Big Top Circus….
Judicial Council Meetings
Thursday December 13, and Friday December 14
unionman575
November 27, 2012
http://www.deeds.com/recording/information.html?id=1337777689RA958984
If a document is written in a language other than English, it must be accompanied by an English translation, performed by a certified or registered court interpreter or by an accredited translator registered with the American Translators Association. The translation must be accompanied by a notarized declaration by the interpreter or translator that the translation is true and accurate, and includes the certification, qualification, or registration of the interpreter or translator.
unionman575
November 28, 2012
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
27293. (a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), if
an instrument intended for record is executed or certified in whole
or in part in a language other than English, the recorder shall not
accept the instrument for record.
(2) (A) A translation in English of an instrument executed or
certified in whole or in part in a language other than English may be
presented to the county clerk for verification that the translation
was performed by a certified or registered court interpreter, as
described in Section 68561, or by an accredited translator registered
with the American Translators Association. The translation shall be
accompanied by a notarized declaration by the interpreter or
translator that the translation is true and accurate, and includes
the certification, qualification, or registration of the interpreter
or translator. The clerk shall consult an Internet Web site
maintained by the Judicial Council or the American Translators
Association in verifying the certification, qualification, or
registration of the interpreter or translator.
(B) Upon verification that the translation was performed by an
interpreter or translator described in subparagraph (A), and that the
translation is accompanied by a notarized declaration as required
pursuant to subparagraph (A), the clerk shall duly make certification
of that verification under seal of the county, attach the
certification to the translation, and attach the certified
translation to the original instrument.
(C) For this verification and certification, a fee of ten dollars
($10) shall be paid to the county clerk for each document submitted
for certification. The attached original instrument and certified
translation may be presented to the recorder, and, upon payment of
the usual fees, the recorder shall accept and permanently file the
instrument and record the certified translation. The recording of the
certified translation gives notice and is of the same effect as the
recording of an original instrument. Certified copies of the recorded
translation may be recorded in other counties, with the same effect
as the recording of the original translation, provided, however, that
in those counties where a photostatic or photographic method of
recording is employed, the whole instrument, including the foreign
language and the translation, may be recorded, and the original
instrument returned to the party leaving it for record or upon his or
her order.
(b) The provisions of subdivision (a) do not apply to any
instrument offered for record that contains provisions in English and
a translation of the English provisions in a language other than
English, provided that the English provisions and the translation
thereof are specifically set forth in state or federal law.
(c) The county clerk is not required to issue a translation
certificate if he or she is unable to confirm the certification,
registration, or accreditation of the translator, as required in
subdivision (a).
Who loves ya baby?
unionman575
November 28, 2012
2) (A) A translation in English of an instrument executed or
certified in whole or in part in a language other than English may be
presented to the county clerk for verification that the translation
was performed by a certified or registered court interpreter, as
described in Section 68561, or by an accredited translator registered
with the American Translators Association. The translation shall be
accompanied by a notarized declaration by the interpreter or
translator that the translation is true and accurate, and includes
the certification, qualification, or registration of the interpreter
or translator. The clerk shall consult an Internet Web site
maintained by the Judicial Council or the American Translators
Association in verifying the certification, qualification, or
registration of the interpreter or translator.
unionman575
November 28, 2012
American Translators Association
http://www.atanet.org/
Judicial Council Watcher
November 28, 2012
I’m told you just assisted dozens of Malaysians who purchased hundreds of acres of land in Kern County over thirty years ago – in addition to one of JCW’s own. The one of our own thanks you and the traffic we’re getting from Malaysia thanks you as well.
(JCW is regularly read in more than a dozen countries outside the United States. Malaysia is not typically one of those countries.)
unionman575
November 28, 2012
Glad to be of service JCW.
Been There
November 28, 2012
Bravo, Unionman! I completely forgot about the ATA when posing above.
And the good news is that is far easier to find a translator for the “exotic languages” than it is to find a certified court interpreter for those same languages.
unionman575
November 28, 2012
California Government Code Section 68561
(a) Except for good cause as provided in subdivision (c),
any person who interprets in a court proceeding using a language
designated by the Judicial Council under subdivision (a) of Section
68562 shall be a certified court interpreter as defined in Section
68566 for the language used.
(b) Interpreters named and maintained on the list of recommended
court interpreters (1) previously established by the State Personnel
Board, or (2) established by an entity provisionally approved under
subdivision (b) of Section 68562, shall be deemed certified under
this article until January 1, 1996. After that date, those
interpreters shall not be deemed certified unless they have complied
with the procedures for certification adopted under subdivision (c)
of Section 68562. Interpreters approved by the State Personnel Board
or any other agency or entity for use in administrative hearings or
nonjudicial settings shall not be deemed certified as court
interpreters. These interpreters also shall not be used in court
proceedings unless they are qualified by the court under subdivision
(c) or (d).
(c) A court may for good cause appoint an interpreter for a
language designated by the Judicial Council who does not hold a court
interpreter certificate. The court shall follow the good cause and
qualification procedures and guidelines adopted by the Judicial
Council.
(d) Any person who interprets in a court proceeding using a
language not designated by the Judicial Council shall be qualified by
the court under the qualification procedures and guidelines adopted
by the Judicial Council. If this qualified interpreter also passes an
English fluency examination offered by a testing entity approved by
the Judicial Council, this person shall be designated a “registered
interpreter.”
(e) Interpreters shall establish to the court that they meet the
requirements of this section under procedures adopted by the Judicial
Council. The court record shall show that the interpreter (1) is a
certified court interpreter as defined by Section 68566 for the
language used, or (2) was qualified by the court under subdivision
(c), after a finding of good cause, or under subdivision (d), if the
language is not designated by the Judicial Council.
unionman575
November 28, 2012
http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2515%20Certified%20Court%20Interpreters%20Wanted%20Announcement%20Application.pdf
CERTIFIED CALIFORNIA
COURT INTERPRETER
Superior Court of California
County of San Francisco
Been There
November 28, 2012
And this shows why it is tough to earn a living as a certified court interpreter — at best many interpreters end up with part time, intermittent work. Given the education and skill level required to pass a certification exam, plus the ongoing costs of continuing ed to maintain that certification, many qualified interpreters seek other employment.
unionman575
November 29, 2012
And that’s why I posted it.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
December 6, 2012
An interesting take re: Court Interpreters from California Watch:
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/calif-courts-face-federal-scrutiny-over-interpreter-access-18725?utm_source=CaliforniaWatch&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=twitter
[Today is Day 636...]
wearyant
December 6, 2012
Yes, an interesting take. Thanks for posting.
” … some legal scholars said California is out of compliance with federal statutes – and national trends.”
The court I worked for routinely ignored the feds, specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act. I support states’ rights and wish the federal gov’t was a lot smaller, but to simply thumb your nose at the feds isn’t advised. That’s why courts admin gets the big bucks, right? To handle these “matters”?
I’m hoping the U.S. DOJ visits the AOC’s JC issues we’ve all been crying about for years while they’re here in sunny California. Perhaps they’d like to lengthen their stay …
unionman575
December 10, 2012
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE AUGUST 16, 2010
TITLE VI LANGUAGE ACCESS GUIDANCE LETTER TO STATE COURTS
http://www.lep.gov/faqs/042511_Q&A_State_Courts.pdf
August 16, 20 I 0
Dear Chief Justice/State Court Administrator:
[n the past decade, increasing numbers of state court systems have sought to improve their capacity to handle cases and other matters involving parties or witnesses who are limited English proficient (LEP). [n some instances the progress has been laudable and reflects increased recognition that language access costs must be treated as essential to sound court management. However, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) continues to encounter state court language access policies or practices that are inconsistent with federal civil rights requirements. Through this letter, DOJ intends to provide greater clarity regarding the requirement that courts receiving federal financial assistance provide meaningful access for LEP individuals….
http://www.lep.gov/final_courts_ltr_081610.pdf
Been There
December 10, 2012
The goal is certainly a good one, but the logistics alone — especially having to provide interpreters outside the courtroom are almost insurmountable. How can a court “plan” to meet the needs of LEP, especially in languages other than Spanish? No court could afford to staff the courthouse with Korean, Farsi, Russian, Mandarin, Toisonese, Hmong interpreters to serve the needs of people who might show up at the courthouse on any given day to to transact business in the Clerk’s office or in a pro se matter.
TheInterpreter'sHere!
January 10, 2013
The truth is that there are already interpreters staffed in courts all over the state for the most common languages — over 700 FTE depending on who’s counting. The courts are actively keeping interpreters from providing needed services because they think it isn’t “mandated” and might not be reimbursable. And the interpreters’ contracts with the courts allow them to share interpreters when they’re needed somewhere else, so they could be using some of the less common languages far more efficiently than they currently are.
Furthermore, the entire interpreter program costs around 3% of the trial courts’ total expenditures, but allows them to serve the 20% or so portion of the public that doesn’t speak English.
Some times there are rare languages that are hard to find, and we’d be happy to work on a solution with the courts if they came to us. Guess how often the approach us for advice.
Been There
January 10, 2013
Um, never?
Judicial Council Watcher
January 10, 2013
There are many, many people that scan our “hire a court reporter” link every day. If it would be beneficial to list (certified? Registered?) interpreters by county or court on a page on this site, we would be happy to do it and update it as a resource gratis. Additionally, if court reporters or interpreters wish to write their own articles to educate others, even under alias, we would be more than happy to post those.
Both of your groups are essential to the wheels of justice. Anything we can do to make it easier for anyone, we’re all ears. Welcome to JCW!
TheInterpreter'sHere!
January 10, 2013
Thanks! Our website, http://www.calinterpreters.org has just launched an interpreter referral service for non-court entities to find qualified interpreters. We’ve just started using it, so not all of our members are in it and not all all of the bugs are worked out. The link is: http://www.calinterpreters.org/referral/
Disclosure: Our organization doesn’t receive anything from referring an interpreter, but we only refer our own members.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 10, 2013
Thanks, that’s even better to link out to professionals that provide their own referral service. Give us a day to put in a link.
Been There
January 10, 2013
Bravo! Court interpreters are often unappreciated and underpaid for the Incredibly difficult work they do. And this site I am sure will be of great service to many in the legal profession.