Rule Canon 9 Duty to Report Criminal Convictions and Ethical Violations

Interpreters must disclose to the OPR the types of criminal convictions and disciplinary actions that potentially constitute “disqualifying misconduct” pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 47.2(1)(c)(3). An interpreter who observes another interpreter commit a serious violation of the Code of Conduct should file a written complaint with the OPR using the form provided by that office. Discretion should be exercised by the interpreter who observed the alleged unethical conduct when determining whether the alleged violation was sufficiently substantial to warrant discipline. Minor or infrequent interpreting errors might be technical violations of Canon 1, but they probably would not warrant discipline. Some examples of serious ethical violations by court interpreters include: frequent failures to interpret accurately or completely in court; falsification of a claim for interpreter services; publicly discussing confidential attorney-client communications; or clearly providing legal advice to an LEP person in court. If an interpreter doubts whether another interpreter’s conduct rises to the level of a serious ethical violation, the interpreter should consider sharing her or his concerns with the other interpreter. Collaboration among interpreters working together to improve their skills is encouraged. [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]