The primary duty of a court interpreter is to be a neutral facilitator of accurate communication between an LEP person and the other English speaking participants in a legal proceeding. An interpreter should avoid any conduct or behavior that presents the appearance of favoritism toward anyone during a legal proceeding. An interpreter should maintain a professional relationship with LEP participants, discourage dependence on the interpreter, and refrain from casual or personal conversation or interaction. An interpreter should strive for professional detachment by avoiding verbal and nonverbal displays of personal attitudes, prejudices, emotions, or opinions. An interpreter must not solicit or accept any payment, gift, or gratuities in addition to the interpreter’s customary fees. Any condition that interferes with the objectivity of an interpreter constitutes a conflict of interest and must be disclosed to the judicial officer, or if the legal proceeding is outside of court, to all attorneys involved in the proceeding. An interpreter should only divulge necessary information when disclosing the conflict of interest. The disclosure must not include privileged or confidential information. The following circumstances create potential conflicts of interest that a court interpreter must disclose:
(1) The interpreter is a friend, associate, or relative of a party, counsel for a party, a witness, or a victim (in a criminal case) involved in the proceedings.
(2) The interpreter or the interpreter’s friend, associate, or relative has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy, a shared financial interest with a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that might be affected by the outcome of the case.
(3) The interpreter has served in an investigative capacity for any party involved in the case.
(4) The interpreter has previously been retained by a law enforcement agency to assist in the preparation of the criminal case at issue.
(5) The interpreter is an attorney or witness in the case.
(6) The interpreter has previously been retained for employment by one of the parties.
(7) For any other reason, the interpreter’s independence of judgment would be compromised in the course of providing services. The judicial officer should carefully evaluate any potential conflict, but the existence of only one of the above circumstances will not automatically disqualify an interpreter if the interpreter is able to render services objectively. The interpreter should disclose to the judicial officer any indication that the recipient of interpreting services views the interpreter as being biased. If an actual or apparent conflict of interest exists, the judicial officer should decide whether removal is appropriate based upon the totality of the circumstances. [Court Orders December 22, 2003, and April 26, 2004, effective November 1, 2004; February 14, 2008, effective April 1, 2008; December 4, 2014, effective July 1, 2015; December 13, 2017, effective January 1, 2018]
