Court interpreters interpret in court proceedings for participants, such as a witness or defendant, who have limited or no proficiency in the English language. Court interpreters interpret in both criminal and civil cases with a wide range of possible subjects. 

Credentialing. The Washington Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is required, subject to the availability of funds, to establish and administer a comprehensive testing and certification program for language interpreters. The AOC is authorized to charge reasonable fees for testing, training, and certification.

The AOC recognizes two kinds of credentialed interpreters: certified and registered.  Whether someone is a certified interpreter or registered interpreter depends on the language they interpret.  To become a certified or registered interpreter, the applicant must pass a written and oral examination and complete orientation, ethics, and protocol training.

The AOC is required to maintain a list of certified and registered interpreters and record of each interpreters' oath.  All language interpreters serving in a legal proceeding must abide by a code of ethics established by Washington Supreme Court rule. 

Appointment. Whenever an interpreter is appointed to assist a non-English-speaking person in a legal proceeding, the appointing authority must appoint a certified or a qualified interpreter, unless the person makes a written waiver.  A qualified interpreter is a person who is able readily to interpret or translate spoken and written English for non-English-speaking persons and to interpret or translate oral or written statements of non-English-speaking persons into spoken English.

The appointing authority must appoint an interpreter who has been certified by the AOC, unless good cause exists to appoint a noncertified interpreter. 

Costs. Court interpreters are entitled to a reasonable fee for their services and must be reimbursed for actual reasonable expenses. Whether the cost of a court interpreter is borne by the government or individual depends on the nature of the proceeding and other factors.

In all legal proceedings in which the non-English-speaking person is a party, or is subpoenaed or summoned by the appointing authority or is otherwise compelled by the appointing authority to appear, the cost of providing the interpreter must be borne by the governmental body initiating the legal proceedings. In other legal proceedings, the cost of providing the interpreter must be borne by the non-English-speaking person unless such person is indigent according to adopted standards of the body. 

Subject to the availability of funds that have been specifically appropriated for this purpose, the AOC must reimburse the appointing authority for up to one-half of the payment to the interpreter where an interpreter is appointed by a judicial officer in a proceeding before a court at public expense and certain requirements are met.

Waiver. The right to a qualified interpreter may not be waived except when a non-English-speaking person requests a waiver, and the appointing authority determines on the record that the waiver has been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.  Waiver of a qualified interpreter may be set aside and an interpreter appointed, at the discretion of the appointing authority, at any time during the proceedings. 

Language Plans. Trial courts are required to develop a written language assistance plan to provide interpreter services for non-English-speaking persons accessing the court system in both civil and criminal legal matters. Each court must provide a copy of its language assistance plan to the interpreter commission established by Washington Supreme Court rule for approval prior to receiving state reimbursement for interpreter costs.

Defects and Omissions in the Law. The Washington Constitution and state law require courts to identify and report on defects and omissions in the laws.  The 2023 letter from the Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court on defects and omissions in the law identified several statutory provisions that have been found unconstitutional by Washington or federal courts, or whose validity is in question based on court decisions, and that still remain codified in Washington law.  When a statute is found unconstitutional, it is no longer valid or enforceable, but it remains codified law until the Legislature removes the unconstitutional provision by amendment or repeal.

Among other statutes, the 2023 letter identified three subsections of the revised code relating to the appointment of interpreters for hearing-impaired persons, each of which have been found unconstitutional by the courts:

• RCW 2.42.120(4) and (5)—these provisions required appointment of qualified interpreters when law enforcement interviewed or arrested people with hearing impairments. In 1998, Patrice v. Murphy, the Washington Supreme Court held these provisions were attached to an unrelated bill in violation of the subject-in-title and anti-logrolling requirements of the Washington State Constitution; and
• RCW 2.42.120(3)—this provision required the appointment of a qualified interpreter whenever a hearing-impaired defendant participated in a court ordered program or activity.  It was enacted in the same bill examined in Patrice  v. Murphy and was found to suffer from the same aforementioned constitutional infirmity by the Court of Appeals in State v. Harris—1999.

Defined Terms. The term credentialed interpreter replaces existing references to certified and registered interpreters. The term person with limited English proficiency replaces the term non-English-speaking person.  The definition of legal proceeding is modified. The term judicial or presiding officer replaces existing references to the term appointing authority.  Various terms are removed. 

Credentialing. After obtaining an interpreter credential from the AOC, the credentialed interpreter must take a permanent oath.

The AOC must: (1) subject to the availability of funds, establish and maintain a credentialing program for spoken language interpreters and administer comprehensive testing, (2) maintain a list of credentialed interpreters and record of their oaths, and (3) work with public or private educational institutions and other organizations to establish suitable training programs and engage in recruitment efforts to ensure the availability of credentialed interpreters.  The AOC may create different credentials and provide guidance for the selection and use of credentialed and noncredentialed interpreters.

All language interpreters serving in a legal proceeding, whether or not credentialed, must abide by a code of professional responsibility for judiciary interpreters established by Washington Supreme Court rule.  

Appointment. Credentialed interpreters shall be appointed in all legal proceedings involving persons with limited English proficiency, unless good cause is found on the record for appointing a noncredentialed interpreter.  Before appointing a noncredentialed interpreter, the judicial or presiding officer must determine on the record that the proposed interpreter is able to interpret accurately all communications to and from the person with limited English proficiency.  In making this determination, the judicial or presiding officer must consider testimony and the needs of the person with limited English proficiency.

For all interpreters, after an appropriate colloquy or other process permitted by statute or regulation, the judicial or presiding officer must find on the record that the proposed interpreter meets certain criteria, and if not, another interpreter must be used.  The court must inquire whether the interpreter can accurately interpret in the consecutive mode if that mode of interpretation is expected to be used, and in the simultaneous mode if that mode of interpretation is expected to be used.

Courts must appoint a team of interpreters when required to do so by Washington Supreme Court rule. 

Costs and Reimbursement. In all legal proceedings a person with limited English proficiency is not responsible for the cost of the interpreter if that person is:  (1) a party, (2) subpoenaed or summoned, (3) a parent, guardian, or custodian of a juvenile, or (4) compelled to appear.  In legal proceedings initiated by government agencies, the cost of providing the interpreter must be borne by the governmental body initiating the legal proceedings.

Subject to the availability of funds specifically appropriated for this purpose, the AOC must reimburse participating state courts for language access services costs and one-half of the payment of interpreter costs for legal proceedings unless a higher reimbursement rate is established in the omnibus budget.

Waiver. A request to waive the right to an interpreter must be made on the record.  The waiver of the right to an interpreter does not preclude a person with limited English proficiency from exercising the right to an interpreter later. 

Language Plans. Trial courts must develop and maintain a written language access plan to provide a framework for the provision of language access services.  The minimum requirements for language access plans are modified. Courts may use a template developed by the AOC in developing their language access plan.  The AOC must provide technical assistance to trial courts in developing language access plans.

Beginning on January 1, 2026, and every two years thereafter, courts must submit their most recent language access plan to the AOC.  Each court must provide a copy of its language access plan in accordance with criteria established by the Interpreter and Language Access Commission for approval prior to receiving state reimbursement for interpreter costs.

Each court must make available on its website translated information regarding access to the court's language access services and programs, and such information must be provided in five or more languages other than English that are predominant in the court's jurisdiction.

Defects and Omissions in the Law. The following subsections that have been found unconstitutional by state courts are removed:

• RCW 2.42.120(4) and (5)—these provisions required appointment of qualified interpreters when law enforcement interviewed or arrested people with hearing impairments; and 
• RCW 2.42.120(3)—this provision required the appointment of a qualified interpreter whenever a hearing-impaired defendant participated in a court ordered program or activity.