6.4 Confidentiality

6.4 Confidentiality

Quick Answer: The interpreter keeps interpreted communications confidential and does not discuss the case outside court. Confidentiality is bounded by legal privilege and the court's authority — the interpreter may disclose when required by law or to prevent imminent harm. The interpreter is a court officer and does not independently waive privilege. Discussing a case with family, friends, or on social media is a breach.

The Canon in One Sentence

The canon of confidentiality requires the court interpreter to keep confidential all information learned in the course of interpreting — privileged or otherwise — and to disclose it only as required by law or as necessary to prevent imminent, substantial harm. The interpreter does not discuss the case with family, friends, other interpreters not on the case, or anyone outside the proceeding.

Confidentiality serves two interests. First, it protects the parties' privilege interests — attorney-client communications, work product, and other legally protected information that passes through the interpreter. Second, it protects the integrity of the proceeding — loose discussion of the case can reach witnesses, influence testimony, or taint the jury pool.

The Interpreter as Court Officer

The interpreter is an officer of the court, not an agent of the parties. Privilege belongs to the parties — typically the defendant or the witness — and the interpreter does not have independent authority to waive it, assert it, or decide what may be disclosed. When the interpreter is unsure whether information may be shared, the interpreter seeks direction from the court rather than deciding unilaterally.

This means, for example, that the interpreter does not turn over notes to a party's attorney simply because the attorney requests them. Notes may be subject to a court order, but the interpreter does not treat a request from one side as authority to disclose — the interpreter refers the request to the court or to the interpreter's program coordinator.

What 'Interpreted Communications' Includes

Confidentiality applies to more than what is said on the record. It covers:

• Attorney-client communications the interpreter facilitates (e.g., in a holding cell or interview room)
• Sidebar conferences interpreted for the defendant
• Side-bar or in-chambers discussions the interpreter hears
• Information learned while interpreting at arraignments, depositions, or other related proceedings
• The interpreter's own notes made during the assignment

The interpreter does not discuss these with anyone outside the proceeding, including spouses, friends, other interpreters not on the case, and — importantly — other parties' attorneys.

The Limits of Confidentiality

Confidentiality is not absolute. The canon recognizes two established limits:

1. Disclosure required by law — A court order, statute, or lawful directive from the court may require the interpreter to disclose information. The interpreter complies with lawful orders and does not assert privilege on the party's behalf.
2. Imminent harm — Where the interpreter learns of a credible, imminent threat of substantial harm to a person, the interpreter may disclose that information to the extent necessary to prevent the harm. This is a narrow exception and is not a general license to disclose wrongdoing, past crimes, or embarrassing information.

Both limits are narrow. The interpreter does not become a general reporter of wrongdoing. The interpreter does not, for example, disclose to the court that the defendant confessed to a past crime in an attorney-client meeting — that communication is privileged. The interpreter does not disclose case information to a journalist, a friend in law enforcement, or a curious family member, even when the information seems harmless.

Discussing the Case Outside Court

The most common confidentiality breach is not a dramatic disclosure — it is casual conversation. Examples:

• Telling a spouse about an interesting case over dinner
• Discussing a difficult interpretation with another interpreter who is not on the case, using enough detail to identify it
• Posting on social media about a 'crazy day in court' with identifying details
• Speaking to a journalist about a high-profile case the interpreter worked
• Confirming to a friend that a particular person was a witness

None of these requires malice. All are breaches because they disclose case information to people outside the proceeding. The standard is strict: information learned in the course of interpreting stays in the course of the proceeding.

Notes and Records

The interpreter's notes are part of the case and are not the interpreter's personal property to share. Best practice varies by jurisdiction, but the interpreter generally does not retain notes after the assignment, does not share them with either side absent a court order, and does not use them to discuss the case afterward. If the interpreter is asked to turn over notes, the correct response is to refer the request to the court or the interpreter's program — not to comply or refuse unilaterally.

Confidentiality vs. Accuracy

Confidentiality and accuracy can appear to conflict when the interpreter learns, off-record, information relevant to the case. The interpreter does not insert off-record information into the record. If the interpreter learns, in a recess conversation, that a witness is lying, the interpreter does not announce it on the record — that is not the interpreter's role. The interpreter renders what is said on the record and keeps what is said off the record off the record. If the information raises an imminent-harm concern, the narrow exception above applies; otherwise, the interpreter stays silent.

Summary

Confidentiality keeps case information inside the proceeding. The interpreter is a court officer, not a party's agent, and does not independently decide what to disclose. The two established limits are lawful orders and imminent harm. Casual discussion — with family, friends, or other interpreters — is the most common breach and the one most often tested.