Complaints against interpreters
Wisconsin Interpreter Program - Disciplinary policy and complaint procedure
The opportunity to provide interpreter services to the courts under the direction of the Wisconsin Director of State Courts office, is at the Director's complete and continuing discretion, because of the critical reliance the courts must have on the skills, performance, and integrity of the interpreter in performing duties for the court. This discretion applies to any person who appears on the Director's roster
of court interpreters, whether the interpreter is certified, provisional or a trainee.
Complaint procedure
Any verifiable complaint that an interpreter has acted in a manner inconsistent with the Code of Ethics for Interpreters;
has committed a criminal act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; or has otherwise acted in a manner that calls into question the interpreter's ability to work effectively in court, may be made to a Judge, Clerk of Court, District Court Administrator, or Court Interpreter Program.
Within 14 days of receipt, the complaint will be forwarded to the Character and Fitness subcommittee, which is a rotating group of three members comprised of a judge/court commissioner, an interpreter, and court clerk/administrator from the Committee to Improve Interpretation and Translation in the Wisconsin Courts. The Character and Fitness subcommittee or designee will clarify the facts surrounding the situation and notify the interpreter in writing of the allegation. If the interpreter wishes to respond to the complaint, the interpreter must file a written reply within 20 calendar days of receipt of the complaint, unless allowed additional time by the Director.
The Character and Fitness subcommittee will evaluate all information received on the matter and make a recommendation to the Director of State Courts. During a pending review, or depending on the circumstances of the alleged violation, the Director may suspend the interpreter from the court's roster of available interpreters for a specified period of time with notification to the Clerks of Court and District Court Administrators.
At the conclusion of a review, the Director will make a final determination and may choose to 1) revoke the interpreter's Wisconsin certification credentials for a specified period of time or permanently; 2) decline to confer certification to a non-certified interpreter for a specified period of time or permanently; or 3) require other appropriate disposition.
While it is not necessary to use this specific format, a grievance form is available for your convenience.
Grievance form  (fillable format)
Results of disciplinary complaints against interpreters
| Date |
Summary of complaint |
Outcome |
Relevant rule(s) |
| 12/09 |
Attorney filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly commenting about the language abilities of the litigant which may have caused a negative chain of events for the attorney's client. |
No significant ethical breaches by the interpreter but more likely a misunderstanding by the recipient of the information (in this case the judicial assistant) whereby the interpreter's statement was conveyed inaccurately to the judge. Interpreter was reminded, however, that the interpreter's job is to interpret and not to provide comments on the language abilities of the parties and the need for an interpreter. Determining the need for an interpreter is the responsibility of the court. |
SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice |
| 07/07 |
Interpreter filed complaint against another interpreter for alleging complainant was misrepresenting qualifications. |
No merit was found in this complaint. |
SCR 63.02 Representation of Qualifications
|
| 07/07 |
Interpreter filed complaint against another interpreter for allegedly accepting an assignment for a sign language case where interpreter was not qualified to do so. |
Enough evidence was presented to substantiate complainant's claim that interpreter accepted an assignment in which interpreter did not hold the requisite linguistic competency for the job. Interpreter held no credentials from any agency or entity to qualify interpreter as a sign language interpreter but did hold credentials as a certified Spanish interpreter. Interpreter was strongly discouraged from accepting any assignments for sign language interpretation in any court in Wisconsin. This finding did not affect interpreter's certification status for Spanish. |
SCR 63.02 Representation of Qualifications |
| 11/06 |
Interpreter filed complaint against another interpreter for allegedly using threatening remarks; for interfering in a confidential conversation between attorney and client in a crowded hallway; and for a general lack of professionalism towards colleagues. |
No significant ethical breaches had been committed by interpreter. No corroboration of either interpreter's story was presented so both interpreters' versions of the situation were plausible. In a busy hallway, the expectation of privacy may be compromised. The motivation for filing the complaint was questioned since it was interpreter against interpreter. Interpreters may be asked to work together in the future and should be mindful if this incident affects their ability to do so, either interpreter must not take assignment. |
SCR 63.04 Professional Demeanor;
SCR 63.05 Confidentiality; SCR 63.08 Assessing and Reporting Impediments to Performance |
| 09/06 |
Consumer filed complaint against interpreter for allegedly giving out legal advice regarding presentation of witnesses at an injunction hearing; and for making consumer change her reply by refusing to interpret what consumer said during hearing. |
Enough evidence was presented to substantiate consumer's complaint and interpreter's explanations were not credible. Interpreter was removed from roster for a 12-month period and required to attend Code of Ethics lecture and small group discussion at court interpreter orientation training. |
SCR 63.01 Accuracy and Completeness;
SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice
|
| 01/06 |
Interpreter for petitioner (who was also a relative of petitioner) filed a complaint against interpreter for allegedly trying to dissuade party from filing petition during a private conversation held prior to harassment injunction hearing; and for trying to influence testimony of petitioner by using hand gestures. |
No significant ethical breaches had been committed by interpreter but more likely a misunderstanding. Interpreter should be mindful of conversing with parties without a third party present and for using hand gestures to indicate “slow down” during interpretation. Motivation for filing complaint was also questioned since it was interpreter against interpreter. |
SCR 63.07 Scope of Practice;
SCR 63.03 Impartiality and Conflict of Interest
|
Back to top
|
