Court Interpreters Protest Use of Noncertified Personnel

Nearly 150 court interpreters staged a protest outside the Criminal Courts Building on Wednesday, saying that the use of noncertified and provisionally qualified translators will jeopardize cases of non-English speakers.

“Sometimes criminal matters can hinge on the correct use of words,” said Alex Abella, past president of the California Federation of Interpreters. “Peoples’ lives, liberty and property are at stake.”

Carrying signs and shouting slogans, the interpreters protested a new three-tier pay system that they consider a threat to their profession because it institutionalizes using the services of those who have not passed a rigorous state exam in any of eight languages.

Under the system, interpreters classified as “provisionally qualified” will receive $200 a day to fill in on court cases when certified interpreters are not available. This is a $30 pay cut.

If an interpreter who is “provisionally qualified” does not obtain certification in a year, he is no longer called for court services, said Gregory C. Drapac, Superior Court assistant court manager.

The third tier of interpreters, those who are not certified or provisionally qualified, will get a $55 pay cut, which will bring their daily rate to $175.

The new system also raised the pay of certified interpreters by $13 to $243 a day. Certified interpreters had wanted a raise to $250 a day but believe that now they will never get it because provisionally qualified interpreters will flood the system, said Robin Urevich, vice president of the California Federation of Interpreters.

Currently, the Los Angeles Superior Court contracts with nearly 630 interpreters and 27 of them are provisionally qualified, Drapac said.

Los Angeles County court interpreters are used in cases involving criminal, mental health, juvenile and family law but not in civil cases.

Many protesters contend that provisional interpreters are not sufficiently educated to work in the courts because they have not passed the state’s written and oral certification exam. Over the last five years, 90% of applicants have failed it, he said.

According to state law, courts cannot use provisionally qualified or noncertified interpreters if a certified interpreter is available, Drapac said.