Amended in Senate September 6, 2013

Amended in Senate September 3, 2013

Amended in Assembly May 24, 2013

Amended in Assembly May 2, 2013

Amended in Assembly March 21, 2013

California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session

Assembly Bill No. 1127

Introduced by Assembly Member Chau

(Principal coauthor: Senator Lara)

February 22, 2013

An act to add and repeal Sections 756 and 756.5 of the Evidence Code and Section 68567 of the Government Code, relating to legal services.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1127, as amended, Chau. Legal aid: court interpreters.

Existing law requires, when a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter to be sworn to interpret for him or her. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of language and interpreter use and need in court proceedings, with commentary, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature every 5 years. Existing law requires that this study serve as the basis for determining the need to establish interpreter programs and certification and for establishing these programs and examinations through the normal budgetary process.

This bill would require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2014, to establish a working group to review, identify, and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to select 3 courts to participate in a pilot project, to commence on July 1, 2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings and would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature findings related to the pilot project by July 1, 2018. The pilot project would be funded by begin insert an amount not to exceed end insert $6 million dollars from the Trial Court Trust Fund begin insert , upon end insert begin insert allocation by the Judicial Council pursuant to the Judicial Council’s existing expenditure authority, or end insert upon appropriation by the Legislature begin insert , end insert from unexpended funds previously allocated for court interpreter services. The bill would also require the working group to act as an advisory body to any Judicial Council committee, advisory board, or joint committee charged with developing a comprehensive statewide Language Access Plan (LAP) for use by courts to address the needs of all limited-English-proficient individuals in conformance with state and federal law. The bill would require the working group to make recommendations relating to the establishment of standards for meaningful and timely provision of language services in all court proceedings and at all public points of contact within the courts, and the establishment of a statewide plan to provide for the translation of court documents using competent and qualified interpreters. The bill would require the Judicial Council and its advisory bodies to submit an interim report to the Legislature on the status of the LAP by September 1, 2014. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2020.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.  

The Legislature hereby finds and declares the
following:

(a) California is one of the most linguistically diverse states in
the nation. As language diversity continues to increase, there is a
greater need to ensure that all Californians have meaningful access
to the court system.

(b) There continues to be a need to expand and improve
California’s ability to provide language assistance within the
judicial system.

(c) Currently, California has not developed statewide best
practices to address the needs of limited-English-proficient
individuals in all court proceedings and at all public points of
contact within our courts.

(d) There continues to be a shortage of information and data
needed to determine what resources the state needs to provide
court interpreters in civil proceedings. In order to plan for the
successful implementation of language access services in civil
proceedings, information must be gathered on how to maximize
the use of existing resources, and the need for language access. A
pilot program is the most efficient way to gather information from
courts as it relates to interpreter services and language access.

(e) The continuing shortage of certified and registered
interpreters for particular languages and various geographic regions
of California impacts the state’s ability to provide meaningful
access to justice for all court users.

SEC. 2.  

Section 756 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:

756.  

(a) (1) On or before March 1, 2014, the Judicial Council
shall establish a working group to review, identify, and develop
best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and
proceedings. The best practices developed by the working group
shall be used in carrying out the pilot project described in Section
756.5.

(2) In developing the best practices for the pilot project, the
working group shall consider ways to maximize the use of existing
resources and other practices that will assist courts to deploy
interpreters effectively in civil proceedings.

(3) The best practices shall include training guidelines to be
utilized by the courts participating in the pilot project described
in Section 756.5 to ensure that court interpreters receive training
necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 756.5.

(b) The working group shall include court executive officers,
presiding judges, interpreter coordinators, three interpreters who
shall be nominated by an exclusive representative of interpreter
employees, experts in training and best practices in the field of
court interpretation, representatives of legal services organizations,
and organizations representing individuals with limited English
proficiency, and others that the Judicial Council determines
necessary. The working group shall also include a representative
from a rural community.

(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2020,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 3.  

Section 756.5 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:

756.5.  

(a) The working group described in Section 756 shall
select up to three courts to participate in a pilot project, which shall
commence on or before July 1, 2014, to provide interpreters in
civil proceedings as specified in this section.

(b) (1) The pilot project shall be conducted for the purpose of
creating models for effectively providing interpreters in civil
matters and implementing best practices.

(2) The pilot project, including costs of administration and the
preparation of the report to the Legislature required in subdivision
(h), may be funded by begin delete up to end delete begin insert an amount not to exceed end insert six million
dollars ($6,000,000) from the Trial Court Trust Fund begin insert , upon
allocation by the Judicial Council pursuant to the Judicial
Council’s existing expenditure authority, or end insert upon appropriation
by the Legislature begin insert , end insert from unexpended funds previously allocated
for court interpreter services. The costs of administration and the
preparation of the report to the Legislature required in subdivision
(h) shall not exceed begin delete 3 end delete begin insert three end insert percent of the total funding allocation.

(c) Interpreters shall be provided by the pilot courts as follows:

(1) The pilot courts shall provide interpreters to any party in a
civil proceeding who is present and who does not proficiently
speak or understand the English language for the purpose of
interpreting the proceedings in a language that the party
understands and assisting communications between the party, his
or her attorney, and the court.

(2) If the pilot courts expend more than 75 percent of the funding
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) within the first 24
months of the pilot project, pilot courts may prioritize interpreter
services in the following types of actions and proceedings, for
purposes of this pilot project:

(A) Actions and proceedings under Section 527.6 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.

(B) Actions and proceedings brought under the Family Code.

(C) Actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer.

(D) Actions and proceedings involving the appointment or
termination of a probate guardian or conservator.

(E) Actions or proceedings under the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11 (commencing
with Section 15600) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code).

(3) The pilot courts shall develop a methodology for deploying
available interpreter resources and funds described in subdivision
(b) if needed. Pilot courts shall establish protocols to ensure that
parties who speak limited or no English and need interpreter
services are identified at the earliest point of contact with the court
system and informed that interpreter services are available. A pilot
court shall not be obligated to provide services under this section
that are not funded by this pilot project.

(4) Interpreters shall be certified or registered pursuant to Article
4 (commencing with Section 68560) of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the
Government Code. Subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 755 shall
apply to proceedings described in this section.

(d) This section shall not be construed to alter the right of an
individual to an interpreter in criminal, traffic or other infraction,
juvenile, or mental competency actions or proceedings.

(e) This section shall not result in a reduction in staffing or
compromise the quality of interpreting services in criminal,
juvenile, or other types of matters in which interpreters are
provided.

(f) This section shall not be construed to create a right to, or
negate or limit a right to, an interpreter in civil proceedings that
does not otherwise exist under current state or federal law.

(g) The pilot project shall terminate on July 1, 2017.

(h) (1) On or before July 1, 2018, the Judicial Council shall
report to the Legislature begin delete its end delete begin insert the working group’s end insert findings and
recommendations based on the experiences of the model pilot
project.

(2) The report shall also describe, to the extent possible, the
impact of the availability of interpreters on access to justice and
on court administration and efficiency.

(i) Nothing in this chapter shall limit or restrict courts from
providing interpreters in civil proceedings when those services are
already being provided or in matters in which the judicial officer
deems it necessary to appoint an interpreter.

(j) Nothing in this chapter shall alter or negate the application
of the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations
Act (Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 71800) of Title 8 of
the Government Code) to the provision of interpreters pursuant to
this section.

(k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2020,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 4.  

Section 68567 is added to the Government Code, to
read:

68567.  

(a) (1) The working group described in Section 756
of the Evidence Code shall act as an advisory body to any Judicial
Council committee, advisory board, or joint committee charged
with developing a comprehensive statewide Language Access
Plan.

(2) In advising a Judicial Council committee, advisory board,
or joint committee, the working group shall make recommendations
for all of the following:

(A)  Establishing standards for meaningful and timely provision
of language services in all court proceedings and at all public points
of contact within the courts.

(B) Establishing procedures for gathering comprehensive data
on the language access needs of court users, including, but not
limited to, providing a means of registering an individual’s
language needs in court documents. These procedures should
provide metrics on the need for interpreter services in court
proceedings and ancillary programs and services.

(C) Reviewing current court interpreter procedures and
recommending improvements or additional procedures to provide
the most competent interpreter services to
limited-English-proficient court users and to ensure compliance
with Rule 2.890 of the California Rules of Court.

(D) Reviewing current court procedures and recommending
improvements or additional procedures to maximize existing
language resources, including bilingual staff, court interpreters,
translators, and other resources shared among courts to expand
access to language services at all public points of contact within
the courts.

(E) Reviewing current practices and developing strategies to
provide interpreter services that comply with the Trial Court
Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (Chapter 7.5
(commencing with Section 71800) of Title 8) in all court
proceedings. The review may include the evaluation of any
programs providing interpreters in domestic violence cases or other
civil cases, including any pilot projects.

(F) Establishing a statewide plan to provide for the translation
of court documents using competent and qualified interpreters.

(G) Establishing a plan to provide education and training to
judicial officers, court personnel, and court-appointed professionals
on the legal requirements for language access, court policies and
rules pertaining to language access, language service provider
qualifications, ethics pertaining to interpreter services, the effective
use of translated court documents, and effective techniques for
working with language service providers.

(H) Reviewing and considering the American Bar Association’s
Standards for Language Access in Courts, as adopted February
2012.

(b) The working group shall be consulted before any committee
of the Judicial Council brings recommendations to allocate any
surplus funds appropriated for interpreter services or to adopt any
policy regarding the reimbursement of the courts for interpreter
expenditures from the funds appropriated for that purpose.

(c) On or before September 1, 2014, the Judicial Council and
its advisory bodies shall submit an interim report to the Legislature,
which shall include the status of its efforts and completion date
for the Language Access Plan.

(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2020,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends that date.