The Interpreter, the Sealed History, and the Cousin From HR
You are reporting a workers' compensation hearing with a Spanish-speaking claimant and a certified interpreter. The interpreter moves between first person ("I told my supervisor") and third person ("He said he told his supervisor"). At one point the interpreter and the witness talk for about 40 seconds, after which the interpreter says only, "He says yes." The ALJ places the claimant's medical history under seal. After the hearing, the claimant's cousin - an HR representative for the employer, which is a party - asks you for a copy of the transcript and offers to pay cash. Opposing counsel also asks you to delete the 40-second exchange, saying, "It was just chit-chat, it's not evidence."
1. How do you transcribe the interpreter's shifting between first and third person, and what is the reasoning?
Read the worked answer
Record what the interpreter actually said, in the form it was said.
- If the interpreter said "I told my supervisor," the transcript reads "I told my supervisor" - usually preceded by a speaker identification making clear it is the witness speaking through the interpreter. If the interpreter said "He said he told his supervisor," that is what appears.
- Do not normalize the two into one style. The inconsistency is a fact about the proceeding. Counsel may later challenge the interpretation, and the ALJ may care about it. A reporter who harmonizes the language destroys the evidence of the inconsistency.
- Speaker identification must be consistent. Establish a convention at the outset - e.g., "THE WITNESS (through the interpreter):" - and use it for every interpreted answer, so the reader is never guessing whether a line is the witness, the interpreter, or counsel.
- If the interpreter spoke Spanish on the record, transcribe what was said in Spanish if that is the local practice, and identify the interpretation as it was given. Do not translate.
The governing idea: the interpreter is a conduit, and the conduit's own words are part of the record.
2. Opposing counsel asks you to delete the 40-second exchange that was never interpreted. What do you do?
Read the worked answer
Do not delete it.
- The exchange was on the record. Whatever happened in those 40 seconds, it occurred during the proceeding, in the room, and it is the kind of thing a reviewing body may want to see - precisely because it was not rendered.
- It is not yours to weigh. "Just chit-chat, not evidence" is an evidentiary judgment, and evidentiary judgments belong to the ALJ. A reporter who deletes on counsel's say-so has exercised discretion she does not have.
- Do not fill the gap either. You do not know what was said, so you do not invent a rendering, and you do not characterize it. Use a neutral proceeding parenthetical, e.g., "(Whereupon, a discussion was had between the witness and the interpreter, which was not interpreted.)", with timing if you have it.
- Surface it to the ALJ on the record if the hearing is still open: "There was a period of approximately 40 seconds between the witness and interpreter that was not interpreted; how would you like the record to reflect it?" Let the ALJ direct.
- Answer counsel in writing: "I can't remove material from the record. If you want the record to reflect a position about it, please raise it with the ALJ."
Deleting on request, even a request from an officer of the court, converts you from reporter into advocate.
3. The claimant's cousin, an HR representative for a party, offers cash for a copy of the transcript, which includes sealed medical history. How do you respond, and who is entitled to what?
Read the worked answer
Decline, and route it through the proper channel.
- Sealed means sealed. The ALJ's order restricts access to the medical history. You are not the gatekeeper who decides which party's employee may look behind the seal, and a friendly request with cash in hand is the classic fact pattern that ends in a sanctions motion.
- Being an HR representative of a party is not the same as being the party's counsel of record. Entitlement to a transcript runs to the parties and their counsel under the rules and any protective order. An employee's role in the case is unknown to you and not yours to assess.
- Do not accept cash, and do not hand over a draft, a rough disk, or a realtime file as a workaround. Any of those would be an end-run around the seal.
- The response: "I can't release the transcript to you directly. Requests go through the ALJ's order and the administrator, and any request for the sealed portion has to be directed to the ALJ."
- Document it. Note the date, the request, the person, and your response in the job file. If a motion follows, your contemporaneous note is your defense.
The professional point: the seal is an order addressed to everyone who touches the record, including the reporter - and the reporter's obligation is to know who is entitled before anything leaves the office.