I’m gratified to resume blogging in 2024. Since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, much has changed for me professionally and personally. Nevertheless, we’ve implemented many positive features. We’ve also observed where progress is stagnant. Almost three years ago, this blog discussed the impact of virtual court proceedings involving deaf/hard-of-hearing and limited English proficient parties in the courtroom who require court interpreters.
How are courts in the Carolinas progessing? Many 21st century changes are taking place, and it’s the electronic Wild West. Technology evolves rapidly. Often clerks of court, administrative staff, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law clerks, and judges have difficulty operating it efficiently. Court dockets don’t decrease just because software training takes place. I have noticed that matters best suited to in-person court appearances are rarely conducted virtually.
North Carolina courts excel because they only permit certified court interpreters for judicial proceedings. Aspiring court interpreters who have not sat for or have failed the interpreter oral certification examination are allowed to interpret very few court proceedings. Further, aspiring court interpreters must achieve certification within two years of beginning the process. If they don’t, the NC Administrative Office of Courts removes them from the interpreter roster. If these individuals choose, they may begin the certification process again.
South Carolina courts are different. SC Court Administration allows both therwise qualified interpreters and certified court interpreters to practice in all types of judicial proceedings. This is problematic. In 2024, the U.S. national pass rate for the state court interpreter oral certification examination is four percent. Let that sink it. During the last two years, the pass rate for SC bar candidates is 73 percent. Why do the numbers seem so low? There are certain barriers to register to sit for the bar exam. There are almost no barriers to sit for the interpreter exam.
According to the SCJB’s website https://www.sccourts.org/courtreporter/CourtInterpreterCertificationProgram.cfm, one must attend a two-day orientation and pass an English-only written exam. Then a candidate may sit for the oral certification exam. Neither the orientation nor the written exam test a person’s ability to interpret. According to NCSC’s Interpreter Test Construction Manual on page 1, “the level of performance the test (oral certification exam) measures is the minimum acceptable level for entry into the profession of spoken language court interpretation. Court Administration’s Court Interpreters in South Carolina Courts: A Policy and Procedure Guide https://www.sccourts.org/languageHelp/Court%20InterpreterPolicyandProceduresGuide.pdf, May 2023 states on page 43 that aspiring court interpreters must achieve certification within two years of becoming “otherwise qualified” or be removed from the directory. A majority of otherwise qualified interpreters (Spanish-English) achieved that status between 2007 and 2015. Nevertheless, Court Administration has not removed them from the court interpreter directory. What’s worse, there are a few otherwise qualified interpreters who misrepresent their qualifications in violation of SCACR §511 Rule 2. Some of these few are certified medical interpreters or certified healthcare interpreters. They represent they are “certified,” misleading solicitors, public defenders, private attorneys, clerks of courts, and even judges. Certified medical and healthcare interpreters possess the minimum standard of proficiency to practice in medical settings. Their code of ethics relate to medical encounters, which differs from the Rules of Professional Conduct for Court Interpreters. They have not received formal training in legal terminology. To illustrate, just because a musician plays the piano does not mean she can play the violin.
In part 2, we will discuss the critical interpreter shortage in North Carolina courts, as well as the language access improvements in South Carolina courts. Additionally, there is one urgent virtual issue that both state judicial branches have failed to address. Stay tuned for September’s conclusion.
Excellent points. The Standing Committee on Interpreters of the Judicial Council of Georgia has stopped using the term “Certified” all together and replaced it with “Licensed”. Other agencies may certify an individual but only a government agency can license them.