2026 Legal Interpreting Summit: Agenda
A1 | Interpreting for Deaf Youth: Ethical Considerations for DI-HI teams
This workshop prepares Deaf–hearing interpreter teams to make ethical, trauma-informed decisions when interpreting for Deaf children in high-stakes child welfare matters.
Participants will analyze two or three case studies, depending on time, to explore ethical considerations and strategies for effective interpreting. Each group will present its analysis and receive guidance and recommendations from the workshop leader. Participants will also use a framework for critical analysis and decision-making and discuss self-care strategies for preventing vicarious trauma.
Abuse and neglect proceedings require highly qualified, consistent Deaf–hearing interpreting teams with training in substantive and procedural requirements, case preparation, and self-care practices that reduce the risk of vicarious trauma.
A brief overview of the federal judicial system for handling abuse and neglect cases and allegations will establish the procedural context for Deaf and hearing interpreter teams. Interpreters must tailor their approaches to each child’s emotional development, sense of self- worth, language level, and communication environment, particularly when abuse is alleged. Preparation and pre-conferencing with the investigator or social worker are essential for aligning terminology, elicitation strategies, and communication approaches before the interaction.
Participants will be able to:
- Identify key decision-points and potential outcomes in ethical vignettes.
- Identify strategies and tools that can be used by the Deaf-Hearing interpreter team to assist in providing a more effective interpretation when working with Deaf children at various stages of language and experiential development.
- Describe how high-stakes interpreting may affect Deaf children emotionally and psychologically and identify practices that reduce potential harm.
- Discuss self-care strategies to prevent vicarious trauma.
A2 | Signposting in the Courtroom: Keeping Deaf Participants Oriented in Legal Proceedings
Courtroom communication depends on participants being able to track who is speaking, what stage of the process is underway, whether a statement is evidentiary or procedural, and how interruptions, objections, and rulings alter the meaning of what comes next. Deaf participants can lose orientation even when words are technically interpreted, because the interactional structure of the event remains implicit.
This seminar focuses on signposting as a deliberate intralingual interpreting practice for making courtroom process visible and followable. Drawing on Tester’s doctoral ethnography of Deaf interpreters in courts of law, the session presents signposting as both a coordinating function and a form of subjective comment/explication that can help Deaf participants remain oriented to speakers, turn-taking, environmental changes, and the unfolding logic of the legal event.
The seminar also connects signposting to Deaf interpreter teamwork, positioning, gaze, and participation framework, showing how interpreters manage alignment with Deaf consumers, co- interpreters, and the court while preserving legal accuracy. Rather than treating signposting as ad hoc “extra explanation,” the session examines when it is ethically warranted, how it supports comprehension of the communicative event, and how to explain the practice to judges, attorneys, and colleagues without misrepresenting the interpreter’s role. Participants will analyze courtroom examples and develop strategies for using signposting to support orientation without drifting into overreach.
Participants will be able to:
- Define signposting in legal interpreting and distinguish it from general clarification, commentary, or unauthorized explanation.
- Identify at least four moments in courtroom interaction where Deaf participants may lose orientation, including speaker shifts, objections, procedural interruptions, and changes in participation structure.
- Demonstrate how signposting can be used to coordinate the communicative event by referencing speaker roles, environmental information, turn-taking, and procedural changes while maintaining legal fidelity.
- Analyze examples of signposting as both coordination and subjective comment/explication, and determine when each is ethically appropriate in legal settings.
- Develop language for explaining signposting to judges, attorneys, and co-interpreters in ways that clarify its purpose, preserve interpreter boundaries, and support Deaf participants’ orientation to the legal process.
B1 | When Language, Trauma, and Immigration Law Collide: Deaf Forensic Neuropsychological Practice
Participants will be able to:
- Describe how language deprivation, trauma, cultural and linguistic differences, and neurocognitive disorders may influence communication and clinical presentation during Deaf forensic immigration evaluations.
- Identify at least three linguistic or procedural challenges that may arise when interpreting during forensic neuropsychological evaluations and discuss strategies that support accuracy, neutrality, and assessment validity.
- Explain the interpreter’s role and ethical boundaries within Deaf forensic neuropsychological evaluations, including collaboration with forensic clinicians and the appropriate use of hearing and Deaf interpreters.
B2 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
C1 | Court Interpreting Ethics: Putting the Policies into Practice (Part I)
Session description coming soon.
Court interpreter codes of professional conduct differ significantly from RID/BEI and other generalist codes. Competent court interpreting requires not only knowledge but the ability to understand the reasons behind the policies to enable the interpreter to identify when the rules must be followed and when to use their discretion. Further practical experience in knowing how to handle situations in which the interpreter is required to breach the rules is a valuable skill that this course intends to address and put into practice.
Court codes should not be blindly followed but need to be viewed through a critical lens of how the rules co-ordinate with the realities of language interpretation. Codes of ethics generally advise interpreters to interpret the message faithfully, ensuring that the register of the court is maintained. Less concern is generally expressed in the ethics regarding the court users’ ability to comprehend and use the language that is interpreted. This seemingly double standard raises questions for interpreter practitioners. Is it enough to interpret a convoluted and sometimes archaic message into a convoluted and archaic rendition? What does linguistically present mean in application? Further, due to structural differences in languages and natural expressions among various languages, interpreting without intentional and deliberate additions or omissions is at times not possible during simultaneous interpreting of non-testimonial discourse in court. Many languages take far longer or take far more words to convey the same idea than can be done in spoken English.
This course will examine evidence of this ‘equal footing’ standard and the other ethical tenets with the lens of language equity and justice for the court user. Through small group work with hypothetical scenarios, participants will analyze and synthesize possible interpreter options. In addition, other common ethical dilemmas will be discussed, and interpreter options examined based on solid authority from court policy and ethical codes.
Participants will be able to:
- Describe the tenets of the court codes that conflict with the RID/BEI codes and explain the policy reasons behind the court’s tenet.
- Describe the equal footing dilemma and give two examples of how attention to the source message register can lead to confusion or incomprehensibility for the target language stakeholder.
- State three reasons why the equal footing directive can be ineffective to ensure court user message comprehension in simultaneous interpreting.
- State at least two types of deliberate omission strategies (without loss of meaning) and two types of deliberate addition techniques that might be used strategically during simultaneous interpretation.
- Supply at least two ethical scenarios from their own experience and apply the decision-making framework to analyze and present each scenario.
C2 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
D1 | Court Interpreting Ethics: Putting the Policies into Practice (Part II)
Court interpreter codes of professional conduct differ significantly from RID/BEI and other generalist codes. Competent court interpreting requires not only knowledge but the ability to understand the reasons behind the policies to enable the interpreter to identify when the rules must be followed and when to use their discretion. Further practical experience in knowing how to handle situations in which the interpreter is required to breach the rules is a valuable skill that this course intends to address and put into practice.
Court codes should not be blindly followed but need to be viewed through a critical lens of how the rules co-ordinate with the realities of language interpretation. Codes of ethics generally advise interpreters to interpret the message faithfully, ensuring that the register of the court is maintained. Less concern is generally expressed in the ethics regarding the court users’ ability to comprehend and use the language that is interpreted. This seemingly double standard raises questions for interpreter practitioners. Is it enough to interpret a convoluted and sometimes archaic message into a convoluted and archaic rendition? What does linguistically present mean in application? Further, due to structural differences in languages and natural expressions among various languages, interpreting without intentional and deliberate additions or omissions is at times not possible during simultaneous interpreting of non-testimonial discourse in court. Many languages take far longer or take far more words to convey the same idea than can be done in spoken English.
This course will examine evidence of this ‘equal footing’ standard and the other ethical tenets with the lens of language equity and justice for the court user. Through small group work with hypothetical scenarios, participants will analyze and synthesize possible interpreter options. In addition, other common ethical dilemmas will be discussed, and interpreter options examined based on solid authority from court policy and ethical codes.
Participants will be able to:
- Describe the tenets of the court codes that conflict with the RID/BEI codes and explain the policy reasons behind the court’s tenet.
- Describe the equal footing dilemma and give two examples of how attention to the source message register can lead to confusion or incomprehensibility for the target language stakeholder.
- State three reasons why the equal footing directive can be ineffective to ensure court user message comprehension in simultaneous interpreting.
- State at least two types of deliberate omission strategies (without loss of meaning) and two types of deliberate addition techniques that might be used strategically during simultaneous interpretation.
- Supply at least two ethical scenarios from their own experience and apply the decision-making framework to analyze and present each scenario.
D2 | Navigating Entry to the Criminal Justice System: From Booking to Miranda and First Appearance
Explore the critical early stages of the criminal legal process, moving from initial law enforcement contact and booking procedures through first appearance, Miranda warning and bail hearings. Gain practical insights into the mechanics of booking processes, and examine how initial hearings operate before cases move to higher court proceedings. Designed for legal professionals and advocates alike, this workshop equips participants with the essential context and terminology needed to navigate these high-stakes preliminary phases accurately and effectively.
Participants will be able to:
- Analyze the operational differences between federal, state, and county booking processes.
- Examine the execution and implications of Miranda warnings and post-arrest procedures.
- Understand the mechanics of first appearances before a magistrate and bail hearings and the transition to subsequent court appearances.
- Identify key legal terminology and contextual frameworks essential for navigating early-stage criminal proceedings.
E1 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
E2 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
F1 | The Weight of a Plea: Context, Nuance, and Interpreting Strategies
The vast majority of criminal cases end in what is called a guilty plea or a change of plea hearing. The hearing comes at a particular point in the criminal pretrial process and contains structures that must be present across all states. Plea agreements also include provisions unique to the locale in which the hearing is taking place. In essence, the agreement contains elements of all contracts which must be knowingly and voluntarily entered into. The court has an obligation to ensure each element meets these requirements.
The plea contains technical and convoluted language which interpreters can and should become familiar with prior to any court interpreting. This session is the place to practice! Designed to introduce the court interpreter to the constitutional procedures and policies controlling the change of plea hearing, this session focuses on interpreting and understanding the plea hearing. The course will include a description of the procedure unique to the plea and the process that a criminal defendant goes through before a plea is entered on the record. The course will examine specific terminology in English and ASL which can be expected in plea hearings. Technical vocabulary will be discussed and examined through the use of ASL to facilitate the discussions.
Participants will be able to:
- Describe the procedure which results in a change of plea.
- Describe the two constitutional principles underlying all guilty pleas as set forth in the US Supreme Court case Johnson v. Zerbst.
- Discuss, analyze and practice interpreting the key components of the voluntariness prong.
- Discuss, analyze and practice interpreting the key components of the knowingly prong.
- Discuss, analyze and practice interpreting key transitions between each of the 5 to 7 sections of a standard plea to ensure that topic markers are comprehensible.
F2 | Reading Communicative Repertoire: Determining Fit and Establishing Communication Without Diagnosis
Interpreters are often asked whether a Deaf person “understands” legal proceedings, even though that determination properly belongs to a retained expert rather than the interpreting team. This seminar reframes that pressure by focusing on a core part of interpreting work: identifying and describing a Deaf person’s communicative repertoire and using that information to determine whether the interpreter is an appropriate fit for the assignment and whether communication can be ethically established in the event at hand.
Drawing on Tester’s doctoral ethnography of Deaf interpreters in courts of law, the session uses communicative repertoire as an overarching concept that includes sign language and signed systems, gesture, fingerspelling, mouthing, written resources, spatial and environmental cues, and other semiotic resources used to make meaning in context. The seminar explicitly avoids deficit labels such as “language deprived,” “minimal language,” or other pathologizing shorthand.
Instead, participants practice describing the communicative event that needs to be mediated—what resources are present, how they are being used, what the event demands, and what mediation is or is not possible—using non-diagnostic, non-restrictive language. Participants will work through legal scenarios, develop language for articulating fit and limitations on the record, and practice responding when communication cannot be established without overstepping the interpreter’s role. The focus remains on professional responsibilities, ethical decision-making, and legally appropriate communication about interpreting conditions rather than on making judgments about Deaf people.
Participants will be able to:
- Differentiate between interpreting responsibilities and expert diagnostic roles in legal settings, using examples that focus on the communicative event rather than deficit-based judgments about the Deaf person.
- Identify and describe at least five observable features of a Deaf person’s communicative repertoire, including linguistic and semiotic resources, and explain how those features affect interpreter fit and the possibility of establishing communication in a specific legal event.
- Formulate non-diagnostic language for use on the record that describes communicative demands, interpreter fit, and the need for adjustments, referral, or additional resources.
- Apply an ethical decision-making framework to at least two courtroom scenarios in which the interpreter must determine whether communication can be established with the current team and conditions.
- Replace deficit labels such as “language deprived” or “minimal language” with event-focused, repertoire-based descriptions grounded in Deaf interpreter practice and translanguaging- oriented analysis.
G1 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
G2 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
H1 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
H2 | TBD
TBD
Participants will be able to:
- TBD
Conference Registration
Registration for the 2026 Legal Interpreting Summit is now open.