Should interpreters compensation be regulated under Section 4(a)(3)(K) of proposed Rule 13 at all?
The section of Rule 13 under which interpreter compensation is prescribed, Section 4(a)(3)(K), is titled “Payment of expenses incident to representation”. Similarly, a memo from the AOC posted to the web page of the Tennessee State Court Interpreter Certification Program and sent to interpreters on the Roster, titled “Reimbursement Process for Spoken Foreign Language Interpreters or Translators in Indigent Cases” states as follows: “The use of a spoken foreign language interpreter or translator in an indigent matter is considered an attorney expense under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13, Section 4(a)(3)(K). (See Addendum 1) On careful reading of all of Rule 13 and upon considering the proper position occupied by interpreters in court cases, TAPIT has grave doubts as to the wisdom of including interpreter remuneration for any in-court interpreting under this section. A case could be made for allowing interpreter payment for out-of-court work to remain in this section, in that the interp
