Okay, so today we're going to talk about interpreted depositions. There was an interpreter that reached out to me a couple months back and sent me a survey about working together with court reporters. I really admire what he was doing. I really admire the fact that he's proactively reaching out to court reporters, trying to get some kind of, um.

I don't know what he's like. I just like the idea of collaboration and helping each other out because honestly, I've seen so many issues with the training levels of certain interpreters that I've worked with and how there are things that are so important for interpreters to know and to be aware of that apparently in their training programs, it's not being made clear.

I think that some interpretation programs train them on maybe like the legal terminology and the words that they're interpreting and you know, the actual interpretation. Kind of similar to how stenography school focuses on the trade and the actual skill of writing on the machine, but there are a lot of systemic rules and very important things to go by when it comes to guarding the record.

And so I want to address those in this episode. This episode is super important for interpreters to hear, to understand, and I would really love to hear all the opinions and you know, any feedback from any court reporters that may have a different opinion from mine. I'm going to refer to specific parts of the NCRA Code of Professional Ethics, as well as four different states that I've looked into their CPLR, like the version --in New York, we use the CPLR to govern deposition practices, but in California, Texas, and Illinois, those are the other three states that I chose to do the jurisdictional comparisons. In those states, obviously they don't have the CPLR, but they do have other governing procedures or laws that they go by.

So I just looked into these to verify what the actual rules are to make sure that my. Opinion is not necessarily going against those or my, my stance on this is, as a true guardian of the record, when should we intervene and when should we not? Recently there was a discussion on Facebook, not, not just one, but I mean, oftentimes I get questions about this, I get pointed to conversations, or I just come across conversations that I've seen regarding this issue, and this interpreter that reached out to me with this survey is doing the right thing by trying to get some kind of an understanding from the actual guardians of the records themselves, us, the court reporters. I really believe that interpreters as well as lawyers, to be honest, like law schools and interpreting programs, their training programs absolutely need to have some kind of a segment from court reporters, like from the perspective of the ones who are actually guarding the record, taking down the record, reading the transcripts, day after day, understanding what it means to get an accurate record and to protect the record. Like I really believe that they need to hear from us because they just really have no idea, and I don't blame them. Like I would have no idea either if I weren't the one that was actually doing it. So I don't think that these training programs have anything in there from court reporters. So it is definitely one of my goals to get their attention and do some kind of collaboration, some kind of training, united training that we can do together.

All right, so let's get into it. At the end of this episode, I will include the actual recording of myself back when I was doing the survey, I really wanted to share it so I recorded my answers out loud as I was pondering things and as time has passed by since then, obviously my views may have changed a little bit, may have shifted, but I'll include that just for the context of the actual questions that this interpreter wanted me to answer.

And he may be coming on the podcast at some point. Back then it didn't work out, but we'll figure out a time that works. All right, so I'm thinking about all the times that I've worked with interpreters and I am definitely like not a nitpicker. I am not sitting there during an interpreted deposition, even though the pace of interpreted depositions is so slow that we have time to literally check our messages, to check our emails in between, like while the interpreter's talking to the witness, it's, it's like, it's actually kind of boring. I tend to get things done in during interpreted depositions because it is just so slow and my brain just, it just, it's like torture if I'm just sitting there. Right. So, and honestly, I have to, I have to like distract myself because I don't want to be listening to their Spanish or whatever language it is.

I'm not trying to listen to their conversation. You know why? Because if I understand what they're saying, I'm tempted to nitpick to jump in and be like, Hey, he said this and you didn't interpret it. Like you didn't say what he actually said. I, that is not my job. They're an interpreter, not a stenographer. They're not a verbatim translator. So that's one thing that I learned when I was working with an interpreter, one time I was using the term translator, or I asked, I asked the interpreter something about like, are you translating, you know, when we were, I don't know. We were just having like an off the record conversation.

And I was using the term translate, and that interpreter corrected me and explained that interpreters are not translators. Interpreters are the ones that are doing like a verbal translation, I guess, like out loud, vocal, verbal, but translators are translating text. I think that is word for word, but I don't know either way.

I just know that interpreters have some, it's not verbatim. They have some wiggle room. They have some room to actually interpret what the witness is saying and to translate that into English in the way that make sense because the language may not have exact word for word verbatim translation. So I'm not there to nitpick.

I'm not there to police the answers and make sure that the interpreter is getting everything. No, that is not my role and that is specifically why I don't pay attention to the other language. I only listen to the interpreter's official English response, which is why it's so important for us as the court reporters to not only swear in the witness as we always do in every deposition, but we also have to swear in the interpreter. So to the witness, we say, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then we go to the interpreter, or I don't know, it doesn't wait. No, actually I think we start with the interpreter.

Okay. So we ask the interpreter, do you swear or affirm that all the testimony you're about to interpret will be. True and correct and accurate to the best of your ability, or something along those lines to the interpreter first. And then once the interpreter is sworn in, then we swear in the witness. The reason why it's important to do the the interpreter first is because they begin interpreting right then and there because as soon as I'm swearing in the witness, the interpreter is doing their job. They're interpreting, they're translating everything that I'm saying and everything the, that the witness is saying, even in the swearing in, because that's important, very important.

And from that point on, we are no longer writing down the answers of what the witness says. So let's say the witness answers something in English, we are not supposed to write it down. It's supposed to still go through the interpreter. So one of my biggest pet peeves is when the interpreter turns to me and looks at me like as if I like, like you got that right. It's an he said it in English, so you can just take that down. But like in an interpreted deposition, I train my brain to tune out the witness because by the law, the witness's answers are being recorded only through the interpreter. So that's why we swear them in at the beginning because they are the official voice of the witness. I remember working for the Board of Parole a couple times back in the day, and they would tell me that I would have to write down when the answer was being answered by the witness, and then when it was being answered by the interpreter, which honestly, I never did that because I would always require the interpreter, like, just, just go through the interpreter, because for the sake of the record, for the sake of the person reading the transcript and trying to understand what was actually happening, it would not make any sense to be going back and forth between the interpreter and the witness. No, it just, it has to go through one person. Either the witness speaks English the whole time, or the interpreter is interpreting the entire time. Even if the witness speaks English, it still needs to go through the interpreter because that is just, it just, that's the way it goes.

And then the second issue that I have with interpreters is when they start, like this part really, really gets me because it feels like they literally don't know what they're doing when they translate or interpret the answer in the third person. So let's say the witness says, yes, I went to the store on Thursday night, and the translator, the interpreter says. He said he went to the store on Thursday night, but then if I write exactly what the interpreter said, when someone's reading the transcript, it's not going to make any sense.

It's going to look like the witness is talking about someone else, and that is not a clear and accurate record. And if I don't intervene at that point, if I don't say anything, if I don't remind the interpreter or let the interpreter know the rules or the way it works, I feel like I'm not guarding the record. Like I'm not a true guardian of the record if I do not intervene At that time. And on Facebook, there was a huge discussion about something along these lines where, you know, there was a whole argument about whether court reporters should intervene. There was a situation where an interpreter was clearly like conversing with the witness in between questions and answers and coaching, the court reporter felt like the interpreter was coaching the witness and was not interpreting accurately, and that again, that is not something that is our job to pay attention to, to judge or to decide. We do not get involved in that. We just pay attention to the answers that we are recording.

We are not recording their Spanish or German or whatever conversations they're having in their language. That's between them. The interpreters doing their job if they need to clarify something. Or if the witness asks a question because they don't understand the question, you know, like they can have that little bit of back and forth and we don't need to say anything.

We don't need to worry about it. We don't need to take it down. We don't need to put a parenthetical, like there was a conversation in Spanish between them. No, it doesn't. I don't think that that's necessary. What I'm really training my brain to pay attention to is just what the interpreter says in English. That is the report, that is the answer, that is the testimony, and that needs to be recorded verbatim. So if they start speaking in the third person, that completely ruins and messes up the record. So if I don't say anything at that point, I feel like I'm being, I'm not being impartial.

I'm not being a guardian of the record. What I'm being at that point is a robot. So I do think that just as we intervene when we don't hear something or when the rules are being consistently broken and they're speaking over each other consistently and they are just not behaving, like of course we intervene when we need to in order to protect the record, but in at the same time, we need to do the same when it comes to the interpreters, completely messing up the record and speaking in the third person.

And then like expecting us to take down half the interpreter and half the witness. It doesn't work like that at all. We must intervene at that point. That's my belief. I might be wrong, I don't know, but I did look into the CPLR and the equivalent of that for California, Illinois, and Texas, as well as the code of professional ethics.

According to the NCRA code of professional ethics, two key principles apply here, number one. Be fair and impartial toward each participant in all aspects of reported proceedings. And then provision number three, guard against not only the fact, but the appearance of impropriety, and then provision number nine, maintain the integrity of the reporting profession.

So now here's the question. What does it actually mean to maintain integrity? Does it mean stay silent no matter what, or does it mean to ensure the record itself is structurally sound? Because yes, the rules do say New York, CPLR number 300, I mean 3000 113 3 1 1 3, record. Record the testimony verbatim, and then in California, capture the record.

Don't create it. Some interpret that as don't intervene, but again, I don't think any court reporter would say that we shouldn't intervene. When needed. So, and then in Texas it says, remain impartial. In Illinois it says N stay neutral. Yes, I agree with all of that, but here's the distinction that I think is missing from the conversation.

There's a difference between intervening in the content versus intervening in the structure. It is not our job to intervene in the wording to police the interpreters. Interpretations to correct minor inaccuracies to evaluate the meaning. It is our job to ensure that the transcript makes sense, is recorded accurately, is consistently in the right format, and that the structure reflects the testimony accurately and correctly.

Sorry if that was wordy and incon like, um, confusing, but I think you guys get the point, right? So I've seen the arguments that like. Don't say anything otherwise you'll get subpoenaed. You, you know, if you insert yourself into the testimony. Okay? Like, I get it, I get it. For the actual words and the actual interpretation, yes, I believe that's true.

I agree. No need to get involved in that, but for the systemic issues, for the structural issues, so what? Subpoena me, sue me. I, I'm happy to speak up. I am very happy to speak up on the systemic issues and the training flaws that exist. Maybe that'll help me come closer to my goal of doing some kind of a joint education segment for interpreters and attorneys or some kind of like a collaborative panel discussion that can be implemented into their training programs or some kind of guidelines, like I don't think that we should be afraid to acknowledge.

The systemic flaws, we need to be able to speak up in those situations. Because what I'm seeing, it's not just individual mistakes, it's a training gap. Interpreters are not trained on the transcript structure. Attorneys are not always aware of how interpretation affects the record and court reporters are expected to just deal with it.

And this is where I strongly disagree with the idea that we are just there to take everything down as it is. We are not robots. We are not ai. That's not what makes us valuable, just taking down everything accurately. Because if like everything we just robotically take down, if that's all we do, then yeah, AI can replace us.

Recording devices can replace that. So to me, a guardian of the record means you ensure that the record is usable, readable, and accurate in structure. Not just existing, not just taking down the mess and the messed up things that people are doing 'cause they don't understand how a transcript is produced.

And again, I want to be clear, I'm not policing interpreters, listening to every error for listening for errors, questioning every word. In fact, I would go as far as to say, if you understand the foreign language, just tune it out. Focus on only the English, focus on what you're actually responsible for capturing.

But when I hear something like third person interpretation, broken structure, confusion for the record, that is where I believe it is not only appropriate to speak up, but it is necessary. So I know this is a nuance to take. I would love to hear from all of you if you have a strong opinion about this.

There's now a feature on the podcast website, court reporter podcast.com. At the bottom right hand corner, there's a green button, and within that green button, there's a white microphone. And you can actually leave a voicemail for up to two minutes. If you have more to say, send multiple. And I may feature them in the next episode because this is not just about rules, it's about where do we draw the line between 📍 neutrality and responsibility.

 Okay, so I am filling out a survey right now that an interpreter sent to me. So I was reached out to by an interpreter who wants to come on the podcast. So he will be coming on the podcast and I'm going to talk to him. And we're going to just chat about what it's like to work with a court reporter and an interpreter, and how we can work well together, how we can actually help each other.

And so here's what the survey questions are and what I'm answering for them. So number one, how often do you work with interpreters? I put sometimes because it's kind of sporadic. And then how many cases per year? What kind of cases? Trials, depos. Tell us more. Uh, okay. So this is just a really ballpark so I put maybe 20 or 30 per year, usually depositions, maybe some parole hearings. Number two. Which languages do interpreters help you with?

What language do interpreters help you with? So I did think this was worded strangely because they don't help me with any language, but they interpret, I mean, they, in my mind, translate the language. So I put Spanish for most, it's mostly Spanish. I mean, I've definitely done a few other languages, but I can't remember exactly what ones, so Spanish is definitely the most common one.

I'm putting Spanish. Which ones are most slash least common? Which types of cases require which languages? So this, I'm just going to put, Spanish is the most common, and I don't know what are the least common, because all of these are pretty, like none of these are really that common. Cantonese, Japanese, French, German, Portuguese, only Spanish is the most common for me.

Number three, which matter the 📍 most? And you would give it a score of an eight or the least score of a zero. Okay, so the interpreter's accent slash speaking clarity, that's definitely an eight out of eight. I mean the less the accent they have the better.

And then the interpreter's personality, I guess it's nice to have someone who has a nice personality. Like if I'm going to be working with someone continuously on a regular basis, yeah, I would definitely, that would be a factor, I wouldn't want to work continuously with someone who's not, who doesn't have a good personality, who isn't understanding, who doesn't like to communicate, you know?

I give that a five out of eight. Whether the interpreter greets me, um, I guess that's kind of goes hand in hand with the personality thing. I mean, that doesn't really affect the outcome of the transcript. But I always try to greet people first. When I walk in a room, I like to give a bright greeting. And you know, greet people by their names if possible. Give them a nice handshake. Just be professional and very forthcoming. So I guess, yeah, I mean I would definitely prefer to work someone, who is a cheerful greeter and like likes to actually greet you. Yeah, sure. That would be nice. I put a four. Uh, the next one is whether the interpreter offers to help me with my transcript. I didn't really understand what that means, whether the interpreter offers to help me with my transcript. I've never had an interpreter offer to help me with my transcript, but then again, 📍 I'm not an actively working real time provider, although I would like to provide real time and I could easily just like push my computer laptop next to the interpreter so that we can both look at it in real time. And then the interpreter offers to help me with my transcript. I wonder what that means, I guess when, when I interviewed this interpreter, we're going to discuss this because this is interesting.

So how does the interpreter offer to help a court reporter with their transcript? I am not sure about that. I guess like. Maybe if I misheard something, or if I just, you know, got something wrong, maybe the interpreter could, could point it out and that would definitely be helpful.

So I would say, yeah, I mean, if the interpreter notices something, they should definitely say something. So I'm going to put a seven for that. Okay. Whether I have a back channel of communication with the interpreter, WhatsApp, private chat, email, et cetera. This never really occurred to me to even think about this as an option, but now that I'm thinking about it, this is a good point.

If I'm going to be working with an interpreter on a regular basis, definitely well, Hmm. Do you mean like in terms of when I'm working on transcribing or when I'm working on scoping my transcript, do you mean like just to talk and just to have a friendship or a professional working relationship where I can ask questions about what was said that I'm not sure. So I'm going to put na. Okay. How well I know the interpreter slash how often I have worked with the interpreter. How Well I know the interpreter, how often I've worked with the interpreter. I'm putting a three for that. Okay. Number four. What did we miss in question two? Okay, so I put how well they're trained as an interpreter.

How well they're trained to protect the record and help make the record clear how well they understand the rules of interpreting. When I say the rules, I'm putting air quotes, because when I say the rules, I, I'm meaning like the rules that I think apply, like what I've heard and what makes a difference for me when I'm trying to write down the testimony.

So for example, if the interpreter, like if the witness speaks English for a few questions, that can cause problems because then the whole transcript is not valid. It's not clear unless you indicate when the interpreter's speaking and when the witness is speaking. If it's mixed up, you have to indicate which one is speaking, and that just complicates everything.

It's so, so annoying to have to do that. Actually, I usually don't end up doing that, even if they break the rules, like it's just too much to have to try to have to mark every single one and say whether it was the interpreter or the witness. That's just, to me that seems ridiculous. So. If the interpreter understands that we have to have everything go through the interpreter, you cannot, like, even if he answers in English, the interpreter still has to interpret it, like still has to translate it or, or speak it or repeat it or whatever it is.

The interpreter, it still has to through the interpreter because that's what was stipulated. That what was, that's what the oath was like. That's. That's what he's here for. He has to interpret every single word pretty much. So yeah, you can't have a mixture of the interpreter giving the answer because by stipulation, like the, the interpreter.

Is speaking on behalf of the witness. So any answer from the witness has to come through the interpreter, and that means that anything the interpreter says is as if the witness said it himself. That's why we don't need to designate anything in the answer. But the a answer designates just like implies that it was the witness who said it, but it was the interpreter who spoke it like in English, if that makes sense.

I'm sorry, this is getting a little wordy here. Okay, so let's continue. Number five, I would want interpreters to help and then in parenthesis discreetly if I wish by. Commenting on my transcripts in real time, commenting on my transcripts in real time, and submit comments for me to review after real-time reporting, commenting on my transcripts, but only after I leave my machine at a real-time assignment.

I don't, I don't understand what these are talking about, but I'll just continue reading 📍 the options. So connecting and share glossaries, especially before an assignment, connecting and sharing glossaries, but not. Especially before an assignment. Hmm. Okay. Perhaps doing these things, but I'd have to see how it goes.

That's the one I'm selecting. Okay. 'cause all the above things that I just read, I don't really understand what that is. But I mean, I'm totally open to trying it. If I'm going to work with an interpreter that wants to try those things and wants to help me out and work together, that's awesome. Yeah. I'm going to select this.

Perhaps I would like to do these things, but I'd have to see how it goes. Okay. Number six, I would want to share my live transcript with an interpreter via, and then here are the options, okay, so my selection out of those five choices is CaseViewNet. And then I also selected CaseViewNet and or another method because there are many different methods, so like maybe Zoom or Livestream or whatever the method is.

I think predominantly I would be using CaseViewNet because I'm a Case Cat user, but sometimes it might just be through Zoom. But yeah, I would totally be open to sharing my live transcript with an interpreter. I, I always want to share my live transcript with someone. Who can kind of like help me out and say, you got that word wrong, or you, you didn't spell that right, or what is, what is this?

Like, here's the word, here's the spelling. Or I can see that I'm going too fast, so let me slow down a little bit. Yeah, I think like I've always wanted to do that and again, I don't know why I haven't yet. And so here we are in this journey. Okay, so number seven. Do you know any software allowing interpreters to comment on your transcripts in real time?

No, but. I'd like to learn. That's my answer. Number eight, what should interpreters know about court reporters? And here's what I wrote. I like for the interpreters to follow the rules and be well-trained.

Number nine, tell us what you don't like about working with interpreters. How can interpreters help you more?

How can they make you happier at work? What should they do less or not at all? What should they do more? Or always? If you have never worked with one, tell us what you've heard from others. Your honesty helps.

Okay. So I, like I said before, it definitely helps for them to know the rules of being the one that has to speak the answers, understanding that whatever they say is as if it's coming from the witness. Oh my gosh. I've worked with interpreters who actually interpreted or translated in the third person, so it was a mess because if I were to write the answer, you know, a designating the witnesses speaking this answer, but then it's in the third person, it doesn't make any sense for the witness to be speaking about himself in the third person.

So it's like, like if the, if the question was what did you do to get sentenced to prison for five years and then the witness says, I. I robbed a bank and I was armed with a gun. And then the interpreter translates that to, he said he robbed a bank and he was armed with a gun. You know, I've, I've actually had interpreters who did translate in that way, and it didn't make any sense.

And it was like very difficult for me to transcribe, for me to, to write it down. Like having in mind the end product of the transcript and wanting it to read clearly and wanting the. You know, not having to go back and edit everything to make, I can't change what they say. Right? So, so I had to, in that situation, I could not go on, I had to stop and say like, you know, try to educate this interpreter on how it's not actually allowed, it's not legal for him to do it that way.

So. That was one situation that definitely I would not like. A, an interpreter needs to be trained that they need to understand their role, the rules of their role, the rules of the depositions for interpreters and everything like that. So also I've worked with the ones that do simultaneous. 📍 So simultaneous means basically that they're speaking on top of the witness. So as the witness is speaking, they're also speaking. I personally think that simultaneous is the way to go, but I haven't really tried it enough because it seems like most of them try to do the other way.

So that would be a cool thing to play around with and try out a little bit. I don't know how the attorneys feel about that. It seems I don't, I don't know. I wonder if like, the reason they usually don't do that is because. The attorneys don't want them to do it, because for me, I think it would be so much easier and I can totally understand what they're saying, but that's a topic to discuss further. This is the last question. What should they do less or not at all? What should they do more, or always, if you've never worked with one, tell us what you've heard from others. Your honesty helps. Tell us what you like and don't like.

Okay. I think I've pretty much said like all I could remember at this point. So I'll stop there I hope this episode was helpful; it definitely got me excited to interview the interpreter. to have a conversation about how court reporters and interpreters can work well together and can help each other out.

So I look forward to that and I'll talk to you all next time. Bye.