Amended in Senate April 15, 2013

Senate Bill No. 597

Introduced by Senator Lara

February 22, 2013

An act to add and repeal begin delete Section 756.5 to end delete begin insert Sections 756 and 756.5 of end insert the Evidence Code, relating to legal services.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 597, as amended, Lara. Legal aid: court interpreters.

Existing law requires that, when a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter be sworn to interpret for him or her.

This bill begin insert would require the Judicial Council, by June 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 end insert would require the Judicial Council to select up to 5 courts to participate in a pilot project, to commence on July 1, 2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings. The bill would provide that the initial pilot courts participate until June 30, 2016, and would require the Judicial Council to consider whether a pilot court should continue participating in the project and whether to select another court or additional courts. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by September 1, 2017, to report to the Legislature its findings and recommendations based on the experiences of the model pilot program. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2018.

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 finds and declares as follows:

(a) California is the most populous and demographically diverse
state in the nation, a meeting place of cultures, ethnicities, and
ideas unlike any other in the world. Of the state’s 34 million people,
about 26 percent (roughly 8.8 million people) are foreign born.
Californians speak more than 220 languages, and 40 percent of
the state’s population speaks a language other than English in the
home. This extraordinary diversity is among the state’s greatest
assets and has helped make California an international leader in
business, the arts, entertainment, engineering, medicine, and other
fields. The state’s diversity also poses unique challenges for the
delivery of government services, particularly for the courts.

(b) For Californians not proficient in English, the prospect of
navigating the legal system is daunting, especially for the growing
number of parties who do not have access to legal services and
therefore have no choice but to represent themselves in court,
which is a virtually impossible task for people who are unable to
understand the proceedings. Nearly seven million Californians
cannot access the courts without significant language assistance,
cannot understand pleadings, forms, or other legal documents,
cannot communicate with clerks or court staff, and cannot
understand or participate meaningfully in court proceedings, much
less effectively present their cases without a qualified interpreter.
People with limited English proficiency are also often members
of groups whose cultural traits or economic circumstances make
them more likely to be subjected to legal problems, in part because
perpetrators recognize their victims’ limited ability to access
judicial protection. It is essential to provide English learners and
other non-English-speaking litigants with interpreters in order to
provide full and equal access to our justice system without regard
to language.

(c) The Legislature has previously recognized that the number
of begin delete person end delete begin insert persons end insert with limited English proficiency in California
is increasing and recognized the need to provide equal justice under
the law to all California residents and the need to provide for their
special needs in their relations with the judicial and administrative
law systems. The Legislature has likewise recognized that the
effective maintenance of a democratic society depends on the right
and ability of its residents to communicate with their government
and the right and ability of the government to communicate with
them.

(d) Court interpreter services are a core court function. Our
judicial system relies on the adversarial process in which neutral
arbiters decide disputes based upon competing presentations of
facts and law. Conducting court proceedings when one party is
incapable of fully participating significantly impairs the quality
and efficiency of the process and its results, including compliance
with court orders.

(e) The inability to respond to the language needs of parties in
court impairs trust and confidence in the judicial system and
undermines efforts to secure justice for all. The authority of the
courts depends on public perceptions of fairness and accessibility.
Any significant erosion of public trust and confidence in the
fairness of judicial outcomes threatens the future legitimacy of the
legal system. By excluding a large segment of the population from
participating in an institution that shapes and reflects our values,
we threaten the integrity of the judicial process. Resentment
fostered by the inability to access the benefits of the court system
can ultimately impair enforcement of judicial decrees and attenuate
the rule of law.

(f) Reliance on untrained interpreters, such as family members
or children, can lead to faulty translations and threaten the court’s
ability to ensure justice. Court interpretation is extremely difficult
and takes a rare combination of skills, experience, and training.
Apart from the possibility of fraud, unqualified interpreters often
fail to accurately and comprehensively convey questions and distort
testimony by omitting or adding information, or by stylistically
altering the tone and intent of the speaker, thereby preventing
courts from hearing the testimony properly. These problems
compromise the factfinding process and can result in genuine
injustice.

(g) California law currently mandates appointment of an
interpreter for all witnesses in civil cases, and for parties with
hearing impairments. In addition, California statutes mandate the
appointment of an interpreter in adjudicative proceedings before
state agencies, boards, and commissions at no charge to the parties
whenever a party or the party’s witness does not proficiently speak
or understand English. Other states by contrast provide both
witnesses and parties with a right to a court-appointed interpreter
in all civil matters at no cost to the party.

SEC. 2.  

The Legislature finds and declares that there continues
to be a shortage in the availability of certified and registered
interpreters in particular languages and various geographic regions
of California. This shortage of qualified interpreters impacts the
state’s ability to provide meaningful access to justice for all court
users. It is the intent of the Legislature that every effort be made
to recruit and retain qualified interpreters to work in the state
courts, and that the Judicial Council make further efforts to improve
and expand court interpreter services and address the shortage of
qualified court interpreters.

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 3. end insert   

end insert

begin insert Section 756 is added to the end insert begin insert Evidence Code end insert begin insert , to read: end insert

begin insert

begin insert 756. end insert   

(a) (1) On or before June 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, the working group shall
consider ways to maximize the use of existing resources,
calendaring issues, 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, interpreters, at least
two of whom shall be nominated by an exclusive representative of
interpreter employees, 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, 2018,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before January 1, 2108, deletes or extends that date.

end insert

begin delete SEC. 3. end delete
begin insert SEC. 4. end insert   

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

756.5.  

(a) (1) The Judicial Council shall select up to five
courts to participate in a pilot project, which shall commence on
July 1, 2014, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings as
specified in this section. The pilot courts shall be selected from
among those participating in a working group established by the
Judicial Council to review, identify, and develop best practices to
provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings.

(2) The initial pilot courts shall participate in the pilot project
until June 30, 2016. The Judicial Council, in consultation with the
pilot courts, shall consider whether a pilot court shall continue
participating in the project and whether to select another court or
additional courts to join the project. Courts selected to join the
project shall participate for three years, or another duration
determined by the Judicial Council, in consultation with the pilot
courts.

(b) The pilot project shall be conducted for the purpose of
creating models for effectively providing interpreters in civil
matters, implementing best practices, and ascertaining the need
for additional interpreter resources and funding to provide
interpreters in civil matters on a statewide basis.

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

(1) The pilot courts shall provide interpreters to any party
proceeding in forma pauperis 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 in the following types of actions and
proceedings:

(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).

(2) The pilot courts shall provide interpreters in other civil
actions or proceedings or in matters in which the party is not
appearing in forma pauperis if there is sufficient funding and
interpreter resources available to meet all the interpretation needs
in the actions and proceedings described in paragraph (1).

(3) The pilot courts shall develop a methodology for deploying
available interpreter resources, including, but not limited to, funds
allocated specifically for interpreters.

(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 of begin delete the
Evidence Code end delete begin insert this code end insert shall apply to proceedings described in
this section.

(d) This section shall not be construed to negate or limit any
right to an interpreter in a civil action or proceeding otherwise
provided by state or federal law.

(e) 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.

(f) 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.

(g) (1) On or before September 1, 2017, the Judicial Council
shall report to the Legislature its findings and recommendations
based on the experiences of the model pilot program. The report
shall include findings and recommendations regarding the need
for additional interpreters and funding, or other resources, to
provide interpreters in both of the following:

(A) Case types that were the subject of the pilot.

(B) All civil actions and proceedings.

(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.

(3) The report shall also describe the factors affecting the
selection of pilot courts, such as, but not limited to, strategies for
collaborating with organizations representing stakeholders, utilizing
local resources, and methods for addressing the availability of
qualified interpreters.

(h) 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.

(i) 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.

(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.