VI.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO

COURT RULES AND JUDGES

Findings

Is there a need for review of court rules related to the use of interpreters?

Yes. There are no state or local rules governing the professional qualifications and responsibilities of interpreters in the court. Such rules establish the foundation for both training and testing interpreters. Without them, court managers, directors of the interpreting agencies, and individual interpreters lack clear direction regarding standards that are appropriate locally. They must rely on practices followed elsewhere, or on academic standards which may be unrealistic.

Does there appear to be a need for programs of education for judges and members of the bar regarding interpreter services?

Yes. National studies have documented the fact that interpreter services have emerged as an important element in court programming, without corresponding efforts to educate judges about how to identify and respond to problems. Examples described previously in the report, that are based on a relatively few in-court observations, suggest that Philadelphia shares 'in the national experience.

Recommendations

Recommendation 18

The court should adopt a rule of court to establish a Code of Professional Responsibility for Court Interpreters.

Comment: The court has been provided with a copy of a "Model Code of Professional Responsibility" (see Chapter 9 of Model Guides, previously cited.) The model code should be reviewed by an advisory group of judges and court interpreters and proposed rules drafted for adoption by the appropriate authority in the court, at the state or local level. The NCSC Model Code has been adapted and adopted by Supreme Court rule in Minnesota and Oregon, and is examined and adapted by advisory committees or staff counsel is several other states.¹⁸

^{Fn. 18} The Model Code is also very similar to the code adopted by the Supreme Court of neighboring New Jersey  

Recommendation 19

Unless free lance or contract interpreters have been screened and approved by the OIS prior to assignment to a court, the courtroom judge should conduct a qualifying voir dire for all per diem interpreters in at least all of the following circumstances: ¹⁹

·        guilty pleas;

·        sentencing hearings; and

·        evidentiary proceedings.

^{Fn. 19} See Model Guides, Chapter 6, "Judges' Guide to Standards for Interpreted Proceedings."

Recommendation 20

The court should consider the feasibility of establishing special scheduling practices for interpreted cases.

Comment: This recommendation was discussed with the study advisory committee. For example, it was suggested that interpreter cases appearing on high volume calendars might be concentrated in fewer courtrooms, rather than being distributed to judges without regard to the need for an interpreter. The feasibility of strategies such as this should be explored in more detail.

---

• Return to Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study Table of Contents

• Go to next Section Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study:

              VII.      Document Translation

• Open full report as Adobe PDF File  Philadelphia Court Interpreter Services Study National Center for State Courts (February 1995) text searchable1.5 megabyte  Adobe Portable Document File

---