Team Interpreting, Elevated: What NAJIT’s New Position Paper Means for Court Interpreters

Earlier this year, I published a post about co-interpreting in the courtroom—what it looks like when interpreters genuinely collaborate, shoulder to shoulder, to protect the accuracy and completeness of the record. The response from colleagues was immediate and familiar: yes this is something we’ve been doing for years. Why isn’t it standard everywhere?

In May 2026, NAJIT answered that question with its most comprehensive policy statement on team interpreting to date: NAJIT Guidelines on How to Manage and Deliver Team Interpreting Services, authored by Nattalia Patterson, Ph.D. and Chantal Portillo, PH.D.—yes, the same Chantall Portillo whose ATA66 session inspired the co-interpreting post in the first place.

This is not a reaffirmation of the 2020 position paper. It is a full operational guide, and it changes the conversation from should we do this? to here is exactly how, and who is responsible for making it happen.

What is NAJIT saying Now?

NAJIT’s position is very clear: team interpreting should be required for all legal proceedins—in court and out-of-court—that involve:

Continuous simultaneous interpreting for more than 30 minutes
Continous consecutive interpreting for more than 60 minutes

This applies to trials, evidentiary and preliminary hearings, sentencings, arbitrations, mediations, and depositions—any proceeding that does not follow a standardized, predictable script.

The paper also names the disparity that practicing spoken language interpreters have long noticed: ASL interpreters have worked in teams as standard practice for decades. Organizations like NCIEC and RID have required it as a baseline professional expectation. No comparable consensus has existed for spoken language court interpreters—and the paper frames that gap explicitly as a language access equity issue.

What the Paper Actually Covers

The guidelines are organized in two parts.

Part I is directed at administrators, scheduling coordinators, legal authotities, and service providers. It lays out a decision-making framework for when team interpreting is required, covering four factors: duration, complexity, emotional dynamics of the case, and interpreter availability. It addresses what adiministrators must do when an interpreter asks for support mid-proceeding, and what legal authorities—judges, commissioners, hearing officers, arbitrators—should do in response. The paper is direct: the obligation to provide adequate resources lies on the legal authority. If team interpreting cannot be arranged at the required standard, a continuance may be neccessary.

Part II is directed at interpreters, organized around three pillars: pre-assignment preparation, during assignment coordination, and post-assignment debriefing. The pre-assignment section codifies what Portillo and Hall presented at ATA66—establishing switching intervals, agreeing on hand signals, reviewing case-specific terminology, and building rapport with a new team member before the assignment begins. The during-assignment section defines the active and support roles in detail. The post-assignment section makes the case for debriefing not just as a quality control measure, but as a foundation for professional community and mentorship.

When the Court Says No

Reading this position paper, I kept thinking about an experience I had last year that crystallized exactly why this guidance is neccessary.

I was working alonside a colleage who needed my support during a jury trial. When I requested permission to confer with her, the judge pointed directly at me and categorically said no. He then scolded me in front of the entire courtroom staff, stating that what I had done was “very wrong” because I was going to taint the jury and make them think something was wrong with the interpretation.

I responded that ASL interpreters collaborate and support each other in court all the time. His answer: he had heard that ASL interpreters do that, but not spoken language interpreters. I continued explaining that conferring with my colleage was part of our code of ethics—our obligation to ensure the record is accurate and complete. His response was unambigous: he could care less about interpreter ethics. He not only did this in the courtroom, but also called my manager to instruct me if I had to correct a mistake or challenge my colleague’s interpretation, I should wait for a break and raise my concerns outside the presence of the jury. I tried to explain my manager that I wasn’t challenging my colleague’s rendering and why waiting for a break would be impractical, but my argument was moot at this point. My manager sided with the judge.

That exchange is a textbook illustration of the gap NAJIT is now working to close. The judge’s reasoning—that a visible consultation wold make the jury think something was wrong—gets the logic exactly backwards. What creates a record problem is an uncorrected error in the interpreted rendition, not a brief professional consultation. And his willingness to dismiss interpreter ethics entirely is precisely why the 2026 paper reframes team interpreting not as a professional preference but as a due process imperative. Courts care about appeals and mistrials. That is the lever.

The paper also provides tools that would have been invaluable at that moment. Appendix 3 contains a scripted Statement of Concern to the Court—this is language an interpreter can use to go on the record citing Canon 1 (Accuracy) and Canon 8 (impediments to Compliance), framing the issue as a procedural obligation rather than a personal request. Appendix 2 introduces the Interpreter Notice of Reservation (INR), a written document the interpreter hands to the presiding judge for entry into the record when they can no longer interpret accurately and completely. These tools shift the dynamic: instead of the interpreter arguing ethics in the moment with a skeptical judge, the concern is formally documented, and the accountability moves to the legal authority.

What This Means in Practice

For courts and administrators, the paper provides a budget planning framework—including guidance on tracking cases where team interpreting was needed but not provided and using that data to justify future resource requests. It notes that the cost of inadequate interpreting (appeals, mistrials, compromised case outcomes) far exceeds the cost of a second interpreter.

For interpreters, the appendices are worth printing out and keeping on hand:

Appendix 1: A template letter to the judge when only one interpreter could be secured, recommending 10-minute breaks per 30 minutes of active interpreting.
Appendix 2: The Interpreter Notice of Reservation—format, procedure, and what the legal authority is required to do upon receipt.
Appendix 3: Sample Statement of Concern to the Court, ready for on-the-record use.
Appendix 4: Sample language for placing corrections on the record in the name of the interpreter team.

The Bigger Picture

It is worth noting that Chantal’s presentation at ATA66 aligns beautifully with this position paper and sets the basis for these guidelines, which many court interpreters should start keeping in mind and adopting. I will surely always have a copy of the INR handy.

If you haven’t read my co-interpreting post yet, start there. Then read the NAJIT paper. Together, they make the case—practically and institutionally—for a practice that too many courts are still treating as optional.