Interpreter Ethics, Standards of Practice, and Professional Conduct
Concepts
Accuracy and completeness: render everything, add nothing, omit nothing, explain nothing. Confidentiality. Conflict of interest. Impartiality and the avoidance of favoritism. Role boundaries - the interpreter is not a legal advisor, advocate, or witness. Competence, and the duty to decline or withdraw from work beyond one’s skill. The duty to correct one’s own errors. Proper use of modes (simultaneous, consecutive, sight) and protocols: first-person speech, positioning, no summarizing, no side conversations, no editing of profanity, grammar, or ambiguity. Oath and demeanor. Continuing education.
Traps
Distractors are framed as helpfulness: explaining a plea to a defendant, advising a witness to answer “yes,” telling a party what a document means, or “cleaning up” an ambiguous answer. Each is a violation. Another trap is the small favor - accepting a gift, discussing a case afterward, or interpreting for both sides in related matters (conflict of interest). Failing to disclose a limitation, or guessing at a term instead of requesting clarification, is an ethics question, not a vocabulary question.
Rule of thumb
When two answers both sound reasonable, choose the one that preserves the record and the parties’ autonomy: state the problem on the record, request clarification, or decline the assignment. Disclose, do not decide.
Worked example
A witness uses a term you do not know. Correct: ask the speaker or the court for clarification. Incorrect: substitute a plausible term, or ask the attorney what the witness “probably meant.”