How To Ensure Equity & Justice in Legal Settings

26 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency (LEP). This population has grown 80% since 1990, and federal courts now process interpretation requests in over 180 languages. Spanish accounts for 96% of federal court interpreting needs, but significant populations speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog.

If you're a legal professional, these numbers represent both a growing client base and an escalating compliance requirement. More importantly, they represent human beings whose constitutional rights depend on whether you provide adequate language access. To understand the urgency of this issue, we need to examine the consequences of language access failure.

How language barriers contribute to wrongful convictions

The numbers behind language barriers reveal systemic failure:

• 395 Latinx individuals have been wrongfully convicted and later exonerated since 1989 

• 40% of Latinx exonerees who falsely confessed reported they "did not fully understand spoken English" during interrogations 

• 26 million LEP people need interpreters to protect their rights in court 

• 13 million live in states that don't require courts to provide interpreters in most civil cases 

Behind these numbers are real people whose lives were harmed by inadequate language access. The next three stories show the human cost when those failures go unchecked.

Annie Ling 

A Georgia court sentenced Annie Ling, a Mandarin Chinese speaker, to 15 years (10 years to serve) for child cruelty after conducting her entire trial without an interpreter. Her attorney admitted he could not properly communicate with her. He chose not to request interpretation because he feared it would "take longer" and make the jury "impatient."

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned her conviction, establishing that "one who cannot communicate effectively in English may be effectively incompetent to proceed in a criminal matter and rendered effectively absent at trial if no interpreter is provided."

Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin 

Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin spent 14 years in prison, including 10 years on death row, before DNA evidence exonerated him in 2018 of a double murder he didn't commit. Language barriers contributed to his wrongful conviction. Guards believed he was "acting" when he didn't understand English and subjected him to additional violence.

Miguel Roman

Miguel Roman served 20 years before DNA testing excluded him as the perpetrator. Officers read his Miranda rights in Spanish but conducted the interrogation primarily in English despite his limited fluency, which produced conflicting statements that prosecutors used to convict him. His case exposes a critical gap: the Constitution guarantees an interpreter at trial but not during police interrogation. 

What the law requires for language access in the legal system

These wrongful convictions become even more troubling when you consider that a robust framework of constitutional protections, federal statutes, and professional ethics rules specifically designed to prevent exactly these outcomes already existed when each occurred. Legal professionals have had decades to implement language access protections. Understanding what the law requires helps explain why these failures are so preventable.

Constitutional mandates

Three constitutional amendments establish the foundation for language access in legal settings. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process (the right to fair legal proceedings). The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel and confrontation of witnesses. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection. These amendments require you to provide language access to protect fundamental rights.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on national origin by any program receiving federal financial assistance. This law applies to courts and many legal service organizations. The Supreme Court established in Lau v. Nichols (1974) that failing to provide meaningful access for LEP persons constitutes national origin discrimination. Even though a new executive order revoked Executive Order 13166 in March 2025, Title VI statutory obligations remain in full effect.

ABA professional ethics rules 

The American Bar Association makes it explicit. ABA Formal Opinion 500 states: "It is the lawyer's affirmative responsibility" to ensure clients understand your communications, you understand theirs, and clients grasp the legal significance of interpreted communications. The opinion emphasizes that lawyers best achieve this duty through "engagement of outside professional services" rather than using family members, friends, or untrained bilingual staff.

Common mistakes that undermine language access protections

So if the legal requirements are this clear and comprehensive, why do wrongful convictions like those of Annie Ling, Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin, and Miguel Roman still happen? Legal professionals continue to make a pattern of preventable errors. These mistakes create the gap between what the law requires and what actually happens in practice.

Mistake #1: Using family members or untrained staff as interpreters 

Family members have emotional investment in outcomes and can't maintain required neutrality. Studies show family interpreters frequently alter information to spare loved ones' feelings. When you press children into interpreter roles, they face increased anxiety and depression that persists into adolescence and young adulthood. This practice also destroys attorney-client privilege and violates confidentiality requirements.

Mistake #2: Inadequate documentation 

A National Health Law Program study found that only 8.6% of cases involving language barriers documented the use of competent interpreters. This poor documentation contributed to adverse outcomes. You must document language needs in case files, record which interpreter you used, and maintain documentation of interpreter qualifications. This documentation creates a paper trail that protects both you and your client if questions arise later.

Mistake #3: Misjudging English proficiency 

A person might handle simple daily interactions such as ordering food, greeting a neighbor, or chatting about the weather but still be unable to follow complex legal language, court procedures, or the details of a plea agreement. Conversational English and legal English require very different levels of comprehension. For instance, someone might communicate comfortably in social situations yet struggle to understand what is being said in court. Never assume that a person understands legal proceedings just because they can manage casual conversation.

Mistake #4: Limiting interpretation to court proceedings only 

Language access obligations apply throughout the entire legal representation. They include attorney-client meetings where lawyers and clients discuss strategy and make decisions, translation of important written documents such as plea agreements that affect case outcomes, interpretation for witnesses who testify, and access to court-mandated programs. These programs may include anger management classes, substance abuse treatment, or community service that judges require as part of a sentence or settlement.

Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic interpretation

The practical question remains: what interpretation options are actually available to you? Three professional services exist; each designed for different situations and levels of complexity. 

In-person interpretation 

In-person interpretation is the gold standard. Physical presence allows interpreters to observe visual cues, body language, and courtroom dynamics that spoken words alone cannot convey. Federal standards recommend in-person interpretation when proceedings last longer than two hours.

Video remote interpretation (VRI) 

VRI connects interpreters through video conferencing platforms such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. Interpreters can join within seconds using on-demand services. VRI removes travel costs and geographic limits, offers access to rare language interpreters, and still allows visual communication through facial expressions and gestures.

VRI requires reliable high-speed internet, quality webcams and microphones, and secure networks. Wired connections provide more consistent video quality and fewer interruptions than wireless ones.

Telephonic interpretation (TI) 

TI offers the fastest access, available 24/7 in more than 200 languages. It requires only a phone and works well in areas without internet access.

However, TI has limitations. Without visual cues, interpreters can't observe body language or facial expressions, which reduces accuracy. TI can't accommodate American Sign Language (ASL), proves difficult with multiple speakers, and can't assist with sight translation of documents (when interpreters read a document in one language and orally translate it into another language in real time). 

How to evaluate which interpretation format best fits your case

The difference between a death penalty case and a routine arraignment is obvious. But what about the gray areas? Medium-stakes depositions and client consultations about plea agreements need systematic evaluation. Here’s how to match the right service to each case.

Evaluate case complexity

According to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 5: Court Interpreting, courts must select interpretation services based on the complexity, duration, and nature of the proceeding. In-person interpretation remains the standard for complex or high-stakes cases where accuracy, credibility, and nonverbal communication are critical. VRI offers a reliable option for shorter or routine hearings when qualified interpreters are not available locally, provided the technology ensures secure, high-quality audio and video. TI is reserved for brief, low-complexity matters such as arraignments, initial appearances, or emergencies when in-person or video options are not feasible. Regardless of the method used, accuracy, security, and equal access must take priority over convenience.

Match service to the legal setting 

• Trials: Prefer in-person interpretation for accuracy and presence. VRI may be acceptable for shorter proceedings.

• Arraignments: VRI is widely adopted and has proven effective.

• Depositions: Use in-person interpretation for witnesses whose testimony could influence the case outcome. Use VRI for background witnesses.

• Client consultations: Use TI for initial intake when gathering contact details and case basics. Use VRI or in-person interpretation for strategy sessions where you discuss case theory and make critical decisions. Never use TI for document review because clients must see the materials being discussed.

Follow professional standards 

The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) states that summary interpreting, condensing or omitting content, is never appropriate in legal settings. Professional interpreters use three main methods, depending on the situation:

1. Simultaneous interpretation: The interpreter speaks while the other person is talking, providing real-time translation with only a brief delay.

2. Consecutive interpretation: The interpreter waits for the speaker to finish before translating.

3. Sight translation: The interpreter reads a document in one language and orally translates it into another in real time.

All three methods must be available, and the same ethical standards apply regardless of which interpretation service you use.

How to implement language equity

Language equity depends on four key commitments:

1. Know your legal responsibilities under the Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Court Interpreters Act, and ABA professional conduct rules.

2. Learn from past failures by studying wrongful convictions caused by language barriers.

3. Avoid common mistakes such as using untrained interpreters, failing to document interpretation accurately, misjudging English proficiency, or restricting interpretation to limited portions of proceedings.

4. Select the right interpretation method by using in-person services for complex cases, video remote interpretation (VRI) for routine matters, and telephonic interpretation (TI) for brief or emergency situations.

These commitments help prevent the same systemic failures that harmed Annie Ling, Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin, and Miguel Roman. Following them ensures that the 26 million people in the United States with limited English proficiency receive meaningful access to justice.