Team interpreting is a practice we know well—but a new emerging perspective invites us to think more intentionally about what it means to truly co-interpret: to share not just the workload, but the responsibility for accuracy, completeness, and the integrity of the record

That reframing hit close to home when I attended the American Translators Association’s 66th Annual Conference (ATA 66) where I joined an excellent session titled “Co-interpreting in Teamed Assignments: Strategies for Promoting Accuracy & Completeness,” presented by Oregon colleagues Chantal Portillo and Richard Hall. For those of us who have long practiced and taught genuine collaboration in the witness stand and at the counsel table, their message was a welcome validation—a reminder that what some of us have been doing instinctively and intentionally for years is now gaining broader professional recognition. The field, it seems, is beginning to catch up. They focused on how interpreters can work, practically, shoulder to shoulder to assist one another—both in consecutive interpretation for witnesses and simultaneous interpretation for defendants—and the practical strategies they shared are ones that too few of us have yet fully embraced. One key takeaway from their presentation was this simple but powerful statement:

“The speakers will focus on two specific strategies attendees can implement to quickly improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the team’s work: the pre-assignment conference and the post-assignment debrief.”

Through a live role-play, Portillo and Hall demonstrated how these strategies work in practice, showing how interpreters can plan terminology and communication cues before a hearing and later review challenges and solutions after it concludes. These coordinated practices enhance accuracy, prevent fatigue, and strengthen trust between co-interpreters—ultimately improving the integrity of the record.

The Legal and Ethical Framework

The principle behind team interpreting is not new. The Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. § 1827) requires the appointment of certified or otherwise qualified interpreters to guarantee meaningful participation by individuals with limited English proficiency. The Judicial Conference of the United States, in its Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 5, also supports the use of interpreter teams in lengthy or complex proceedings to maintain quality and prevent fatigue.

In California, Rule of Court 2.890 establishes professional conduct standards for court interpreters—accuracy, neutrality, confidentiality, and continuous professional development. These ethical obligations are directly reinforced when interpreters collaborate, since team interpreting allows them to monitor one another, support consistency, and ensure that nothing is omitted or distorted.

Why Collaboration Matters

Interpreting is one of the most cognitively demanding linguistic tasks imaginable—whether working in consecutive mode for witnesses or simultaneously for defendants. Every nuance, idiom, and shift in tone can change meaning, and the stakes in a courtroom are uniquely high. Working alone, especially during long trials or technical hearings, can lead to mental fatigue and small but significant errors in either mode. In a team, interpreters alternate roles: one actively interprets while the other monitors accuracy, takes notes, manages terminology, and provides discreet assistance—a dynamic that proves essential regardless of which interpreting mode is being performed.

This peer-support model—which is not about correcting or challenging anothr interpreter’s rendition in the moment—is reflected in the Judicial Council of California’s Professional Standards and Ethics for California Court Interpreters (6th ed., 2025), which addresses team interpreting in several contexts. The manual identifies fatigue and overlapping communications as impediments to performance that are best handled by working as a team, alternating interpreters to “prevent fatigue, ensure accuracy, and avoid interruptions to the proceedings” (California Ethics Manual, p. 27). It also instructs interpreters working alongside a colleague to confer discreetly when an error occurs and to protect the record (California Ethics Manual, p. 24)—consistent with the broader obligation under Rule 2.890(b) to interpret completely and accurately without omission, and Rule 2.890(g) to elevate the standards of the profession. While the manual does not prescribe pre-session briefings or post-session debriefs by name, these practices—as highlighted by Portillo and Hall at ATA 66—flow naturally from the ethical framework the Judicial Council has established: interpreters working as a team are expected to coordinate, monitor one another’s accuracy, and take collective responsibility for the integrity of the record (California Ethics Manual, pp. 17, 24, 27).

A Real-World Example

This made far more sense—a hard candy rattling in a purse, not a pastry. Thanks to this quiet intervention, Chantal was able to correct her rendition on the record seamlessly and timely, ensuring accuracy without disrupting the proceeding.

This example perfectly demonstrates how regional variations in language—even within the same language—can create confusion, and how a second set of trained ears can catch nuances that might otherwise be lost or misinterpreted.

Putting Collaboration into Practice

Administrators, judicial officers, and attorneys can play a key role in supporting effective interpreter collaboration. Courts and their justice partners can:

• Assign two-person interpreter teams for lengthy or high-stakes proceedings.
• Allow time for brief pre-hearing conferences and post-hearing debriefs so interpreters can prepare terminology, review performance, and—when appropriate—conduct a brief pre-hearing meeting with the witness to ensure the interpreter and witness can understand each other before testimony
• Encourage discreet teamwork cues during proceedings (“Your Honor, may the interpreter confer with her colleague?”), allowing interpreters to assist one another, clarify terminology, and ensure accuracy without interrupting the flow of the hearing.
• Support continued education in co-interpreting techniques and interpreter’s ethical requirements.

These steps align with federal and state guidelines and reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to language access.

Conclusion

Team interpreting is not simply a logistical choice—it is a constitutional safeguard. The practice of co-interpreting, as reaffirmed in professional forums like ATA 66, strengthens both accuracy and fairness in the courtroom. When interpreters collaborate through structured pre-session briefings and post-session debriefs, as Portillo and Hall emphasized, they uphold the integrity of the process and the dignity of every participant.

Courts that recognize and facilitate peer collaboration among interpreters reaffirm a foundational truth: justice cannot be equal unless it is understood.

---

References

American Translators Association. (2025, October 22–25). ATA 66th Annual Conference [Conference]. Boston, MA. https://www.atanet.org/ata-events/annual-conference/

Judicial Conference of the United States. (2016). Guide to judiciary policy: Vol. 5. Court interpreting. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/court-interpreting-guidance

Judicial Council of California. (2025). Professional standards and ethics for California court interpreters (5th ed.). https://languageaccess.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/professional-standards-and-ethics-california-court-interpreters.pdf

California Rules of Court, rule 2.890, Professional conduct for interpreters. (2007). Judicial Branch of California. https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/two/rule2_890

Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827 (1978, as amended 1988). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1827

Portillo, C., & Hall, R. (2025, October). Co-interpreting in teamed assignments: Strategies for promoting accuracy & completeness [Conference session]. ATA 66th Annual Conference, Boston, MA.

National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators. (2020). Position paper: Team interpreting in court-related proceedings. NAJIT. https://najit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Team-Interpreting-5.2020.pdf

National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators. (2006). Position paper: Modes of interpreting—simultaneous, consecutive, & sight translation. NAJIT. https://najit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Modes_of_Interpreting200609.pdf

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2024). Federal court interpreter orientation manual and glossary. U.S. Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/2024-federal-court-interpreter-orientation-manual_0.pdf

Gile, D. (2002). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 163–176). Routledge.

Dueñas González, R., Vásquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (2012). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.

U.S. Courts. (n.d.). Court interpreting guidance (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 5). https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/court-interpreting-guidance