Lisa Bell
Senior Court Operations Consultant
Office of the State Court Administrator
500 S. Duval Street,
Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1900

Miami, July 11th 2017

Dear Lisa,

The members of the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Florida (ATIF) are concerned by the situation in the 11th Judicial Circuit, where non-certified Spanish interpreters are often permitted to interpret in court and court-related proceedings. Given this concern, ATIF sent a letter to Chief Judge Bertila Soto (attached hereto). Her reply to our letter (also attached) is even more troubling.

In her response, the Honorable Chief Judge says that the Court is complying with the rules by providing certified staff interpreters for defendants. That is true and we are not disputing that.

She also states that, “in the event that the court cannot provide an interpreter in a court-related proceeding, such as a mediation, the responsibility falls on the attorney or self-represented litigant to retain the highest state-level designated interpreter to comply with the requirements set forth under Rule 2.565, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.” This is indeed a correct statement of the rule, but it is ATIF’s position that this rule is not being enforced effectively.

If the presiding officer of any court or court-related proceeding does not verify and ensure that the requirements of Rule 2.565 are met, then the rule, for all practical purposes, is moot. Our members have witnessed and are troubled by this lack of verification and enforcement, which is frequently the case in Miami-Dade County. They are concerned that if it is allowed to continue, it will become more and more prevalent.

From occasional cases in the past, this practice has become more common, for the simple reason that it has gone unchecked. As a result, non-certified interpreters have encountered no resistance or obstacle to offering their services in many of the 11th Circuit courts. In many instances, self-represented litigants are even encouraged to bring with them to court a non-certified interpreter (who could be a friend, relative or anyone at all).

Some interpreting agencies that had originally adapted to the new rules and regulations are now reverting back to the sporadic use of non-certified interpreters, and not as a result of an unsuccessful diligent search for certified, qualified or registered interpreters. Rather, it is because currently the credentials of these non-certified interpreters are not requested nor challenged when these people are sent to perform assignments in this Circuit.

Curiously, this seems to be the case only in the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County. We have received no information of this anomaly occurring in any other circuit. To the contrary, we find laudable efforts–such as that of Amy Borman. General Counsel for the 15th Circuit, who wrote a Florida Bar News article on 11/15/2016 about the proper use of certified interpreters. We are also heartened to see that the 17th Judicial Circuit takes these rules seriously, to the extent of printing on its notices that, “both parties must obtain a court-certified interpreter.” Some 17th Circuit judges even go so far as to request that the certified interpreter state his/her name and certification number on the record–and at least one judge that we know of even checks the veracity of this information on the Florida Courts’ website before continuing with the proceeding.

Our members are concerned that this situation in the 11th Judicial Circuit, where we have a large percentage of certified interpreters, will spread to other circuits, and that much of what has been gained by Florida’s certification process could eventually be lost.

Many interpreters in Miami-Dade County are now questioning the value of their certification in the face of this situation. They feel that the process to obtain certification–which is difficult and costly–should provide some corresponding significance in terms of the service they provide. Other than in a position as a staff interpreter, where certification is a job requirement, in Miami-Dade one can make a living as a court interpreter without being certified, mostly due to the laxity found in the 11th Judicial Circuit.

Before we conclude, there is another matter, with regard to Rule 14.100(a), in Judge Soto’s response that we believe requires clarification. The Honorable Chief Judge states, “However it is important to note that a ‘court interpreter’ includes as all persons providing spoken language interpreting services in all court or court-related proceedings, except those providing services without remuneration on behalf of persons demonstrating an inability to pay in circumstances not requiring the appointment of a court interpreter. See Rule 14.100(a). Persons falling within the foregoing exception are not considered ‘court interpreters’ and consequently are not subject to the rules regulating the use of court interpreters.” [Emphasis mine.]

Since we received this reply from the Chief Judge, our members have been asking whether this means that, if we certified court interpreters render our services for free to persons unable to pay, we are no longer subject to the rules and regulations that currently govern our conduct and performance? And does it mean that, if we are accused of an ethical violation, it would be sufficient to state as a defense that, since we were acting pro bono, we are technically not a “court interpreter” and therefore such rules do not apply?

We are in need of clarification and guidance in these matters. Both ATIF and, we believe, the CICRP want to see the community of certified court interpreters continue to grow and become ever-more professional under these relatively new sets of rules and regulations. The system should also adapt to these new rules and enforce them. We are convinced that we all stand to benefit from this approach: the courts, the litigants and witnesses, the interpreters and justice in general.

I thank you in advance for the guidance and advice we soon hope to get from the CICRP.

Respectfully,
Andrés Messulam
President
Association of Translators
And Interpreters of Florida

Chief Judge Hon. Bertila Soto
11th. Judicial Circuit
Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center
175 N.W. 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33128

Miami, April 30th 2017

Dear Judge Soto

Our Association has received many complaints that judges and magistrates of the 11th Judicial Circuit are allowing non-certified Spanish speakers to act as interpreters before the Court in court-related proceedings.

Since 2008, interpreters have been subjected to a rigorous certification process established by the Supreme Court of Florida, through the Court Interpreters Certification and Regulation Program, resulting in Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule 2.560 and Rule 2.565.

This certification process has forced interpreters to take difficult proficiency exams and spend money in continuing education courses as well as re-certification fees. Many interpreters were not able to meet these stringent demands. To our knowledge, there were interpreters with over 20 years of service in the 11th Judicial Circuit, among others, who were compelled to leave their position as staff interpreters due to the non-compliance of the certification process.

These rules have directly affected the lives and livelihood of many interpreters, therefore, it seems quite unfair that the Judiciary – the same branch that created these rules – should not follow them as well.

We are sure your Honor was not aware of this being the case in the 11th Judicial Circuit. We are hopeful that your Honor will give careful consideration to this ongoing situation.

The Association puts itself at your disposal for any matters your Honor feels it could be useful,

Respectfully

Andrés Messulam
President of the
Association of Translators
and Interpreters of Florida
Tel 305 495 3047
Email: board@atifonline.org

Members of the Advisory Committee

Court Interpreter Certification and

Regulation Program

Office of the State Courts Administrator

Miami, February 26th. 2017

Dear Sir(s):

On behalf of the approximately 200 members of the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Florida (ATIF), a regional chapter of the American Translators Association (ATA), we would like to bring to the attention of the Court Interpreters Certification and Regulation Program (CICRP) certain difficulties that our Association has encountered in the submission for approval of continuing education courses for CIE credits.

The difficulties are two-fold: (1) the time required by the CICRP to analyze and render a decision on its approval, and (2) approval of the course content itself.

The CICRP developed guidelines (Florida Supreme Court – Office of the State Courts Administrator – Court Interpreter Certification and Regulation Program – Compliance Requirements for Certified Spoken Language Court Interpreters) to establish the parameters that—in theory—should serve to help develop these continuing education courses.

Last August, ATIF was denied a request for a course called ‘Interpreting Cultural Differences in Medical Interpreting” on the grounds set forth by section 2.3.1B.1(a) of the guidelines, which states: “The subject matter (should be) relevant to court interpreting, the work of the courts, or the judicial branch.”

In reference to the case mentioned above, medical interpreting is found in the court system in many forms: lawsuits that entail medical malpractice, slip and falls, workman’s’ compensation, competency hearings, forensic testimony, independent medical evaluations, psychiatric evaluations—the list is interminable. So we question whether the person who decides that the subject matter is relevant to court interpreting, the work of the courts, or the judicial branch, is familiar with the reality of actual court interpreting.

Court interpreting can more broadly be defined as legal interpreting and can entail the knowledge of an infinite variety of subject matters. Any seasoned court interpreter can attest to the fact that one of our greatest fears is to unexpectedly have to interpret terminology and/or subject matter with which we are unfamiliar. So whenever a person who knows much more than we do of a particular subject is willing to share his or her knowledge, it becomes a valuable opportunity for us to learn and grow as professionals.

As is true for attorneys and physicians, we interpreters prefer that continuing education courses be imparted to us by our peers, yet here again we find a stumbling block. We have had courses denied on the basis that the interpreter giving the course is not an expert in the field. This shows a lack of understanding of our profession. This interpreter may not be an expert in the field, may not want to learn all about it or even work in it; rather, he or she wants to teach how to interpret when confronted with the particular subject matter. It is not a matter of science—it is a matter of linguistics.

Professional court interpreting is not carried out in a vacuum, and if it is, it is at the peril of justice and due process. Therefore, it is important that we as interpreters be given some latitude to expand our knowledge with information that we know will be valuable for our professional development and at the same time comply with the CIE requirements set by the State.

This brings us to another related point of concern, which is the fact that when a course is denied and later appealed, it is reviewed by the same person who denied it in the first place. We have no indication—published or otherwise—to the contrary. If this is indeed the case, we believe this procedure to be in need of amendment.

With respect to the time it takes to approve a course, 30 days seems to us to be excessive.

The process of planning a continuing education course involves a number of steps:

1. Research and find a presenter who is not only a good speaker but one who has valuable and interesting information to share. Presenters, especially good ones, have time constraints, and so a tentative date is agreed upon.

2. Secure a venue. Since we are a non-profit organization that offers free courses, our first choice is a free venue. There is almost no possibility of securing a free venue more than 30 days in advance because the entities that offer us free space do so only when they are certain that they themselves will not require the space. And they do not offer their space more than 30 days in advance because they don’t necessarily plan their own events that far in the future – and their events always take priority.

3. The course proposal is written and sent to Tallahassee. If we then have to wait 30 days for the CICRP to make a decision, often the presenter is no longer available, or the venue cannot be secured, or we have insufficient time to announce and advertise the event.

One way to circumvent this situation would be for the CICRP to wave the requirement that a venue and/or date be included in the proposal. In that case, with an approved proposal in hand, we could then coordinate with the presenter, secure a venue and properly announce and advertise the course.

Finally, we would like to point out a disparity in your own regulations. In Part 2, Section 8.0 (G) of the Florida Supreme Court – Office of the State Courts Administrator – Court Interpreter Certification and Regulation Program – Compliance Requirements for Certified Spoken Language Court Interpreters, it states:

“Pre-approved providers are identified in section 2.3.1A (the American Translators Association (ATA) being one of them).  Relevant courses offered by these providers do not require a Continuing Education Activity Approval number and may be listed on the continuing education reporting form with course title, hours, and course dates.  Proof of attendance or completion must be retained by the interpreter.”

The course mentioned before (Interpreting Cultural Differences in Medical Interpreting) that was denied to us is currently approved for 4.0 CE credits by the ATA. Does this mean that an interpreter can get CIE credit for it as self-study, being that the ATA is a pre-approved provider?

Our Association, ATIF, is completely voluntary and has no paid staff at all. We are providing all these courses for free to our more than 200 members, who in the most part are on the Court Interpreter Registry. It supposes a lot of work, but we are doing our utmost to facilitate court interpreters’ compliance with the CICRP requirements.

We understand that all these regulations are relatively new and therefore we believe that necessary adjustments to them should not be approached as an unusual or negative occurrence.

We recognize the effort and diligence of all those involved in the CICRP and thank you for all you do. We hope these comments will be accepted in the constructive and positive light in which they are given.

Respectfully,

______________________________

Andrés Messulam

President of the Association of

Translators and Interpreters of Florida