April 6, 2001
RE: "A DAY IN COURT" FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS"
Dear Ms. Harpstrite:
I was pleased to learn that the "A Day In Court" program was well received by the Interpreters and Translators who attended. Below are responses to the follow-up questions you forwarded to the Clerk's Office:
Who is responsible for assigning Interpreters for Federal Public Defenders, Court-Appointed (CJA) Panel Attorneys and privately retained attorneys in criminal cases (for in-court and out-of-court work)?
The Duty Magistrate Judge or presiding Magistrate Judge is responsible for assigning Interpreters for Federal Public Defenders and Court-Appointed (CJA) Panel Attorneys. Privately retained attorneys ordinarily find their own Interpreters, but these Interpreters must also be appointed by the court after a review of their credentials. In those cases, in-court Interpreter services are paid from court funds, and out-of-court services are paid by the privately retained attorney.
What kind of oversight is provided to ensure that the first call is to the certified or professionally qualified, and that assignments are distributed fairly?
The Court's policy in this matter was set out in Judge Ezra's letter of August 1999 and re-affirmed at a Judges' meeting held on February 26,2001. Magistrate Judges are responsible to the Chief Judge to see that the policy of the court is carried out.
In 1994 the court issued a memorandum regarding the appointment of court interpreters. Is this policy still in effect? If not, could the court provide a copy of the current policy on appointment of interprets?
The procedure for assignment of Interpreters is substantially the same now as it was in 1994 with a few exceptions. Interpreters are now listed as AO certified, professionally qualified, and language skilled. As of February 26,2001, record-keeping procedures were added to show how Interpreter assignments are being distributed and why an Interpreter in the rotation as not assigned in a particular case. Along with those changes, a procedure for removal of an Interpreter for unsatisfactory performance has been added as well. There is no formal statement of procedure to replace the 1994 memorandum to which you refer.
Regarding the "Guidelines for Billing for Interpreter/Translator Services", [mailed out by the Office of the Clerk to all who attended the "Day in Court" orientation on March 8, as well as to all interpreters on the federal court list. PJH] there have been several questions regarding the term, "dismissed", in Scenario 3. Who is it that "dismisses" the interpreters? Are we correct in assuming that, when the interpreter is called back to work in the afternoon, the full day rate will be paid only if, at the time he/she left the court upon completing an assignment in the morning, the interpreter was not already scheduled to return in the afternoon, and that in that case, the full day rate will be paid even f the total time worked that day is less than four hours?
The answer to your first question is, the person who "hired" the Interpreter is most often the court. In this context, the term, "dismissed", means that the proceeding for which the Interpreter was called has concluded for the day. You are correct to assume that the full day rate will be paid only if, at the time he/she left the court, the interpreter was not scheduled to return in the afternoon. The full day rate will be paid even if the total time worked that day is less than four hours.
Could the Federal Public Defender's Office create a standard invoice form for Interpreters, listing rates paid for the first hour, portions of the hour after that, mileage, etc.? That would help to clear up some of the confusion and inconsistencies that have come up in today's orientation session.
This request will be forwarded verbatim to the Office of the Federal Public Defenders for a response.
Thank you for asking these questions. I trust that the replies above add to the Interpreters' understanding of court policy and procedure.
Sincerely,
Leslie E. Kobayashi
U.S. Magistrate Judge