What 10,000 Depositions Taught Me About Interpreters and the Record

When we talk about depositions, most lawyers focus on the questions, the documents, and the court reporter. Far fewer of us pause to think about the person who literally gives our limited English proficient clients a voice: the interpreter providing in-person interpretation during onsite interpreting services.

Reading Jim Garity’s book 10,000 Depositions and listening to his 10,000 Depositions Later podcast, especially the episodes on interpreters, completely reframed how I look at interpreted depositions. His core message is simple and unsettling: in an interpreted deposition, the “record” is not what your client actually said. It’s what the certified interpreter said.

The transcript is the interpreter’s voice, not the witness’s

In one of the podcast episodes, Jim Garity explains that in a typical interpreted deposition, the certified transcript contains only the interpreter’s English, in standard Q&A format. The witness’s original answer in Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, or any other language does not appear in the transcript at all.

The court reporter writes down the interpreter’s English from the in-person interpretation, not the witness’s words.

Even more striking, he points out that even if the court reporter speaks the foreign language and realizes the interpretation is off, the reporter is not supposed to intervene. Their job is to capture the record, not correct the interpretation. That’s consistent with guidance from reporting boards and with what actually happens in courtrooms.

Garity describes a case where a juror who spoke the witness’s language became frustrated with repeated mistakes by the interpreter and blurted out that the witness was saying something different. The judge instructed the juror to stay silent and later told the entire jury that they must rely on the official English interpretation provided by the certified interpreter, even if they personally understood the foreign language differently. Everyone must consider the same evidence, and that “evidence” is the interpreter’s version.

For any attorney working with limited English proficient clients, that reality should ring alarm bells. If the interpreter is not highly competent, accurate, and impartial, the official record can quietly drift away from what the witness actually said.

The rules don’t distinguish interpreter errors from reporter errors

Garity also walks through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 and its state counterparts. The rule allows a deponent to review the transcript and make changes “in form or substance,” with reasons, on an errata sheet. Crucially, the rule does not carve out a special category for interpreter mistakes. It doesn’t ask whether the error came from the court reporter, the onsite interpreter, or anyone else.

From the rule’s perspective, an error is an error. If there’s something wrong in the transcript, including an inaccurate in-person interpretation or consecutive interpreting error, it has to be addressed through the review and errata process (or by seeking relief from the court).

That sounds straightforward in theory. In practice, as Jim Garity emphasizes, it’s very hard to correct interpretation errors if:

• No one on the legal team truly understands the foreign language.
• There is no independent recording or check interpreter to compare the official English to what was actually said.

This is where the choice of interpreter becomes absolutely critical.

How 10,000 Depositions reshapes the way we choose interpreters

Taken together, the book and podcast make one thing very clear: interpreters are not a scheduling detail. They are part of the evidence.

If the interpreter is:

• Underqualified
• Unfamiliar with legal terminology
• Casual about accuracy and neutrality

Then the “record” that emerges from the deposition may not reflect your client’s true testimony. That affects everything: summary judgment motions, impeachment, settlement posture, and ultimately the fact-finder’s view of your client.

Garity’s discussion leads to several practical implications for how attorneys should approach interpreted depositions and the people they hire:

1. Use certified on-site interpreters or certified court interpreters, not just anyone who’s bilingual. His examples highlight how dangerous it is to rely on a friend, family member, or untested bilingual staffer. For a limited English proficient witness, the interpreter is effectively their legal voice. That role belongs in the hands of a professionally trained, certified court interpreter.
2. Treat interpreter selection as part of case strategy. Garity’s analysis shows that once the transcript is created, courts and juries are going to treat it as the official version of events. That means the decision of who interprets, their training, certification, experience, and impartiality, is tied directly to the strength and reliability of your record.
3. Build in quality control: recordings and check interpreters. On the podcast, he recommends creating an independent audio or video recording of the deposition and, when appropriate, using a check interpreter to review the original foreign-language testimony against the English transcript. That gives you a factual basis to propose corrections on an errata sheet.
4. Be proactive about timing and errata. Garity also notes that if you need more time to verify the interpretation, the court (not the reporter) is the one who can extend the deadline for submitting corrections. Knowing this in advance allows you to ask for additional time when you genuinely need it to protect a limited English proficient client.

The bigger picture

10,000 Depositions and the 10,000 Depositions Later podcast aren’t “interpreter manuals”; they’re about deposition practice as a whole. But the segments on interpreted depositions are a clear warning: when a witness doesn’t testify in English, the quality of your interpreter can either protect the integrity of the record or compromise it.

For lawyers, that means interpreter choice is not just a cost item or a logistical box to tick. It is a professional responsibility and a strategic decision.

When your client’s voice has to travel through another human being, that human being must be qualified, certified, vetted, and treated with the same seriousness as any other critical expert in your case.