When Interpreter Credentials Are Questioned

Hiring an interpreter is not a scheduling task. It is a risky decision.

Recent litigation involving One Call has raised allegations about whether individuals presented as certified interpreters were properly licensed or credentialed under applicable state requirements. Allegations are not findings. Courts decide that. But the issue matters to any law firm relying on interpretation services, legal interpreting services, or an interpretation and translation agency.

If interpreter credentials are misrepresented, the consequences surface in the proceeding itself. In litigation, that means challenges to the record.

Let’s focus on the legal mechanics.

Allegations Expose a Structural Risk

The reported claims center on whether interpreters supplied in regulated settings were properly certified or licensed as represented. I am not repeating accusations. I am addressing the risk that exists for any interpreting company operating in legal environments.

There is a legal difference between:

• A bilingual individual
• A foreign language interpreter
• A qualified interpreter
• A certified interpreter
• A court certified interpreter

If an agency markets certified interpreters, professional interpreters, or legal interpreting services for depositions and trials, those representations must be accurate and verifiable.  For interpreting agencies in California and across the USA, where court certification rules are defined by statute, credential accuracy is a compliance issue.

In Court: The Record Controls

In legal interpretation, credentials are not cosmetic.

Depositions, hearings, arbitrations, and trials rely on accurate interpretation. If a deposition interpreter or trial interpreter lacks required certification, opposing counsel may challenge:

• The reliability of testimony
• The adequacy of simultaneous interpretation
• Whether statutory requirements were satisfied

The transcript is permanent. If interpretation is compromised, fixing it later is costly and sometimes impossible.

Law firms that rely on interpretation services without verifying certification where required expose themselves to avoidable litigation risk.

Let me speak as the attorney hiring the interpreter.

I retain an interpretation and translation agency for legal interpreting. I request a certified interpreter for a deposition. The interpreter is sworn. The record reflects that a certified professional is present.

Later, it is discovered that the interpreter was not certified under state law.

Now what?

First, credibility becomes an issue. I represented that a certified interpreter was handling legal interpretation in my case.

Second, opposing counsel may move to strike testimony or reopen the deposition. They may argue the use of a non-certified interpreter affected the validity of the proceeding.

Third, I must explain to my client why the legal interpreting services I retained did not meet the required standard.

Courts may not require attorneys to independently audit a vendor’s credentials. But if an interpreter’s qualifications are challenged, it is the lawyer who must answer on the record.

Even if the error began with the interpreting company, the practical consequences attach to the case.

That is the litigation risk.

Translation Risk Is Similar

The same logic applies to legal translation and certified legal translation.

If filings require certified legal translation and a document translation provider cannot substantiate its certification, the problem surfaces when the document is challenged.

Whether the service involves global translation services, document translation, in person interpretation, or virtual interpretation, representation must match reality.

Words Matter

Many interpreting companies use broad marketing language:

• Interpretation services
• Legal translation
• Professional interpreters
• Language services
• Global translation services

Those terms are not interchangeable with court certified interpreters where state law requires certification.

A foreign language interpreter may be highly skilled and entirely appropriate in certain contexts. But when certification is required, it is not optional.

If an interpretation and translation agency blurs that distinction, the hiring law firm absorbs the exposure.

Process Is the Safeguard

At Kaplan Interpreting Services, intake is structured around those questions. When a firm requests legal interpreting services, simultaneous interpretation, in person interpretation, or virtual interpretation, we confirm:

• The jurisdiction and venue
• Whether certification is legally required
• The specific language and dialect
• Whether legal translation or document translation is involved
• The credential level required for compliance

If court certification is required, we assign court certified interpreters and verify documentation before the proceeding. If certification is not required, we disclose the interpreter’s qualification level clearly.

No credential inflation. No ambiguity.

Lawyers should be focused on litigation strategy, not defending the résumé of the interpreter in the room.

When you hire an interpretation and translation agency for a legal matter, the objective is simple: protect the integrity of the proceeding and eliminate avoidable challenges.

That requires verification before the case begins, not explanations after it ends.