A court reporting agency booking an interpreter is taking on a risk it did not create and cannot see. If the interpreter cannot produce a credential on the record, or renders testimony in the wrong mode, or bills in a way the client did not expect, the complaint arrives at the agency. This is a vendor-neutral standard for evaluating an interpreter subcontractor, written to be applied to any provider including one you already use.
Why this sits with the agency
The interpreter is a subcontractor. The client relationship is the agency's. When an attorney reads a transcript six weeks later and finds no credential statement, or when a cost memorandum is challenged because the interpreter's tier cannot be established, the conversation is with the agency that scheduled the deposition. That is the whole reason a screening standard is worth having in writing rather than in someone's head.
It is also worth noting what this is not. It is not a suggestion that agencies should audit interpreters. It is a short list of things a competent vendor can answer in a sentence each, and an incompetent one cannot answer at all.
One: can the vendor supply a credential number in advance
This is the load-bearing question and everything else is secondary to it. Ask for the assigned interpreter's name and their certification or registration number before the assignment, in writing. In California that number is checkable against the Judicial Council's public list of current court interpreters.
A vendor who says the interpreter is certified but will not produce a number, or who says the number will be provided on the day, is describing a process in which nobody has checked. There is no legitimate reason to withhold it. It is not confidential, and the interpreter is required to state it on the record at the deposition anyway.
Two: can their interpreters make the record statement
California Government Code section 68561(h) requires the interpreter at a deposition to state, on the record, their qualifications including certification or registration number, whether the oath was administered or is on file, and confirmation that the badge and photo identification were presented to both parties. It has been law since January 1, 2015.
Ask a prospective vendor whether their interpreters make that statement as standard. The answer is diagnostic. A vendor that says yes and can describe the sequence is running a professional operation. A vendor that has not heard of it is telling you that its interpreters routinely appear at California depositions without meeting an obligation that has existed for a decade. Our article on the record statement sets out the mechanics if you want to check the answer against the statute.
Three: does the tier protect the client's cost recovery
This is the point that turns a compliance question into a commercial one your client cares about. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(3)(B) allows, as a recoverable cost, the fees of a certified or registered interpreter for the deposition of a party or witness who does not proficiently speak or understand English.
A vendor supplying interpreters outside those tiers is quietly converting a client's recoverable expense into one that is harder to recover, on an invoice the agency passed through. That is a conversation no agency wants to have retrospectively. The mechanism is set out in who pays for the deposition interpreter.
Four: conflict disclosure
California Rule of Court 2.890 governs interpreter professional conduct. It requires an interpreter to represent their certifications, training and relevant experience accurately, to interpret accurately without embellishing, omitting or editing, and to be impartial and disclose any actual or apparent conflict of interest, noting that any condition interfering with the interpreter's objectivity is a conflict. It also bars disclosure of privileged communications between counsel and client and prohibits the interpreter from giving legal advice.
The practical question for a vendor is procedural: what happens when an assigned interpreter recognises a party or a witness. In smaller language communities this is not hypothetical, it is routine. A vendor with an answer has thought about it. A vendor without one will discover the problem in the room.
Five: mode, teaming, and duration
Ask what mode the vendor uses for sworn testimony and when it staffs two interpreters. The answers you want are consecutive for testimony, and teaming triggered by duration and sustained simultaneous work rather than applied at random.
A vendor that offers simultaneous interpreting of testimony as a time-saving feature is offering something that damages the transcript your reporter is producing, which makes it your problem specifically. The reasoning is in consecutive or simultaneous interpreting at a deposition.
Six: language depth, stated honestly
Every vendor claims a large language count. The useful question is different: ask how they cover a scarce language in a specific venue, and what they do when they cannot. The good answer describes lead time, relay arrangements for indigenous languages, and a willingness to say no. The poor answer is an assurance that everything is always available, which is either untrue or means a bilingual speaker will be sent.
A related test is whether the vendor distinguishes varieties without being prompted: Eastern from Western Armenian, Mandarin from Cantonese, an indigenous Mesoamerican language from Spanish. A vendor that treats those as interchangeable will eventually send the wrong interpreter to one of your depositions.
Seven: commercial terms that will not surprise your client
- The billing unit, and the hour boundary for a half day and a full day.
- How time beyond the block is charged, and in what increment.
- The cancellation window and what is payable inside it. The published California workers compensation schedule uses 24 hours as its convention, which is a reasonable benchmark.
- Whether travel and mileage are included, and measured from where.
- Whether a second interpreter on a long proceeding is included or billed separately.
Depositions move constantly, so the cancellation terms matter more to an agency than the headline rate. A lower rate with a 48-hour window can cost more across a year than a higher rate with a 24-hour window.
Eight: what happens when something goes wrong
Every vendor performs well on an easy assignment. The difference shows up on a hard one, and it is worth asking about before you need to know. Three scenarios are worth putting to a prospective vendor directly.
- The interpreter does not arrive. What is the escalation path, how quickly does someone answer, and who calls your client?
- The assigned interpreter recognises the deponent. Who decides whether to proceed, and how is the disclosure recorded?
- The deposition runs four hours past the estimate. Is a second interpreter available, and what happens to the rate?
The answers matter less than whether the vendor has answers at all. A provider that has thought about failure has usually experienced it and built something. A provider who responds that this does not happen is telling you it has not happened to them yet, at your expense.
It is also worth asking who you actually reach. An agency scheduler calling at 8:15am about a 9:00am deposition needs a person, not a ticket queue. This is a legitimate differentiator between providers and it costs nothing to ask about.
Nine: onboarding that does not create work for you
The practical friction in adding an interpreter vendor is rarely the interpreting. It is insurance certificates, confidentiality terms, invoicing formats, and whether their paperwork fits your pass-through billing without someone rekeying it.
Ask early: can they invoice per assignment with your matter reference on it, can they supply a certificate of insurance naming what your client agreements require, and will they sign your confidentiality terms rather than insisting on their own. A vendor that is excellent in the room and impossible in accounts payable is a vendor your billing team will quietly stop using.
A short scorecard
Applied to any vendor, current or prospective:
- Supplies interpreter name and credential number in writing before the assignment.
- Interpreters make the section 68561(h) record statement as standard.
- Supplies certified or registered interpreters for California depositions, and says so in writing.
- Has a stated conflict disclosure procedure.
- Uses consecutive rendering for sworn testimony and has a stated teaming trigger.
- Distinguishes language varieties without prompting, and will decline an assignment it cannot cover properly.
- States billing unit, increments, travel and cancellation terms in writing before booking.
Seven items, each answerable in a sentence. A vendor that clears all seven is unusual. A vendor that clears fewer than four is a liability sitting inside your client relationship.
Sources
California Government Code sections 68561 and 68566, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, available through California Legislative Information; California Rule of Court 2.890, published by the Judicial Council of California; California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9795.3. Verified against the primary sources in July 2026.
AMS works as an interpreter vendor to court reporting and deposition agencies across California and supplies credential numbers in writing before assignment. See our deposition interpreting service or contact us to discuss coverage.