LEPs and Court Budgets Need Market Rate Interpreters

1. LEPs and Court Budgets Need Statewide Market Rates

• Courts need the freedom to negotiate fair market rates with interpreters who must charge full or half days to serve Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals (Pages 3, 4).

• The JCC admits that interpreters will leave markets that do not pay fair market wages (page 5), and define fair wages in the 2025 Workforce Study.

2. Experience and Relationships Matter

• If enacted, SP26-05 will sever longstanding relationships between contractors and the specific courts they serve.

• These interpreters possess necessary knowledge and experience in court-specific working cultures, procedures, facilities, and personalities that allow access to justice, representing an investment that must be protected.

3. Denying LEPs Truly Certified Interpreters is Unconstitutional

• Refusing the right of certified interpreters to receive fair market rates will drive certified interpreters away from serving LEPs.

• Serving LEPs is mandated by:

  • Article 1, Section 14 of the California Constitution

  • Title VI of the 1974 Human Rights Act, 

  • California Rule of Court 2.893

  • Many other codified norms

4. The Monetary Cost of Refusing Fair Market Rates outweighs savings

• Refusing fair market rates (as defined in the 2025 Workforce Study) to skilled interpreters far outweighs any cost savings proposed by SP26-05.

• Contract interpreter costs are offset by:

  • A: Reduced employee costs as employees leave for the free market.

  • B: Reduced operational costs by avoiding expensive delays due to interpreter shortages (such as prison stays, postponed hearings, appeals due to inexperienced or uncertified interpreter errors).

5. All Interpreters (Employees and Freelancers) Deserve Basic Freedoms

• Contract interpreting is, ultimately, not necessarily more lucrative.

• Employees also quit because they are denied the freedom to (Page 3):

  • A: Freely negotiate market rates.

  • B: Leave the workplace after work is finished rather than staying until 5:00 PM.

  • C: Easily get time off.

  • D: Contract freely with any client they wish.

6. Full- and Half-Day Rate Structures Necessary, Not Negotiable

• The courts operate on morning and afternoon sessions, so interpreters need to be paid accordingly.

• In-person interpreters cannot sell a whole or half day to two different courts given travel needs.

• Remote assignments do not reliably happen within pre-arranged time blocks, making half and full days minimum blocks.

• Any assignment requiring more than 1.5 travel hours requires a full-day rate. Hourly rates do not fairly recognize this market reality (page 4).

7. Cancellation Policies Must Pay Fair Market Value for Time Sold

• Cancellation fees must pay fair market value for the time an interpreter cannot sell to another client.

• This applies to whole and half days canceled within a reasonable cancellation period negotiated between an individual court and an interpreter (generally 2 court business days) (page 4).

8. An Interpreter Available at Fair Market Rates is Available

• An interpreter available at fair market rates (as described in the 2025 Workforce Study)  is certainly available, and not unavailable (page 5).

California Rule of Court 2.893(e)(1) precludes the use of non-certified interpreters without a diligent search for a certified interpreterVideo Remote Interpreting (VRI)

• Video Remote Interpreting is inadequate for most settings and should be very limited (page 5).

10. Flat Rates, Travel Expenses

• Flat rates are important fair market mechanisms to allow courts the flexibility to contract, save on expenses, and pay fair market rates to interpreters.

• Courts should be allowed to pay flat rates as they often save money for the courts.