The Check Interpreter: Why Counsel Brings a Second Interpreter to a Deposition

Interpreters make mistakes. NAJIT, the national association of judiciary interpreters, says fatigue, rapid exchanges, and complex content can all compromise an interpreter’s accuracy. In an interpreted deposition, that matters because the transcript is in English only. It records what the interpreter said, not what the witness said, and the witness’s own words are not transcribed. Counsel who does not speak the witness’s language cannot tell, in the moment, whether the answer on the page is the answer the witness gave.

That would not matter if errors could be fixed later, but fixing them later is a gamble. Unless the testimony was recorded, there is nothing in the witness’s language to check the English against once the deposition ends. The deposition rules also treat errors that could have been corrected at the time as waived unless someone objects during the deposition, and they do not say whether an interpretation error counts. The safe course is to raise a problem while the witness is still in the chair, and counsel who does not speak the language needs someone who does, working for their side, to catch it.

That is the job of a check interpreter. This article covers what the role is, how it differs from team interpreting, why the catch has to happen in the room, how courts have treated it, how a concern is raised on the record, and what to settle before the deposition.

What a Check Interpreter Does

A check interpreter is retained by one party and listens to the testimony in both languages. When a rendering may be inaccurate or incomplete, the check interpreter alerts counsel, usually with a written note, and counsel decides whether to object. The record interpreter interprets for everyone. The check interpreter monitors for one party and does not interpret on the record.

This is not team interpreting. In a team, two interpreters share the record and alternate roles, and the one not speaking monitors the other. NAJIT’s May 2026 guideline says the support interpreter “is required to politely and professionally intervene when a significant error occurs,” and that corrections “should be made in the name of the team.” A check interpreter does not work for the proceeding. They work for the party that retained them and speak through that party’s counsel.

Why the Catch Has to Happen in the Room

The record cannot be checked later. The court reporter takes down English only. Unless the testimony was recorded and someone later transcribes and translates it, nothing written shows what the witness said.

Nobody else will flag the error. California’s Court Reporters Board, in its best practice pointer on interpreted depositions, says a reporter who knows the language and hears an incorrect interpretation is not to interrupt, because “the onus is on the parties present to provide a check interpreter.” The pointer is guidance, not regulation.

The rules penalize silence. California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.460(b) provides: “Errors and irregularities of any kind occurring at the oral examination that might be cured if promptly presented are waived unless a specific objection to them is timely made during the deposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B) is parallel. Neither rule names interpretation errors, so whether a court will hear a late objection is uncertain. Two California criminal trial cases point the same way. People v. Aranda (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 230 held that “[w]hen no objection is raised to the competence of the interpreter during trial, the issue cannot be raised on appeal,” and People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116 found a claim of interpretation errors forfeited.

Later fixes are narrow. In federal court, a witness who asks to review the transcript before the deposition ends has 30 days to make changes “in form or substance” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e), though courts disagree about how far substantive changes may go. A witness who does not read English would also need the transcript interpreted back to find the errors. None of this replaces catching the error when it happens.

Courts Have Recognized the Role for More Than a Century

The term appears in California case law as early as People v. Phillips (1910) 12 Cal.App. 760, which later cases cite for the check interpreter. The modern statement of the rule comes from Aranda: “When a showing is made, at trial, that an interpreter may be biased or his skills deficient, one solution may be appointment of a ‘check interpreter.’”

The California Supreme Court quoted that passage in Suarez, where the defendant argued that counsel could not tell whether translations were full and accurate. The court upheld the denial of his request for a check interpreter because he had not made the required showing, and noted that the trial court had let him tape-record the testimony of the Spanish-speaking witnesses instead. A federal court has noted the role in commercial litigation as well. In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Nvidia Corp., 314 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Va. 2016), the court noted that a Korean-speaking witness testified through an interpreter whose work was verified by a check interpreter.

Aranda and Suarez arose at criminal trials, and the deposition rules do not mention check interpreters by name.

How a Concern Is Raised on the Record

Two different tools come into play. Interpreters confer, and lawyers object. They are not alternatives. Conferring tries to settle the question on the spot, and the objection preserves it if it is not settled.

Interpreters confer. The Judicial Council of California’s Professional Standards and Ethics for California Court Interpreters covers this. When another interpreter challenges a rendering, the guide says to request a recess to confer. If the record interpreter agrees there was an error, they correct the record. If not, they state that the interpreter stands by the interpretation. The guide is written for court, where the interpreter asks the court for the recess. In a deposition there is no judge to grant it, so in practice it depends on counsel agreeing to a brief break.

Counsel objects, and the objection is noted. If conferring does not resolve the problem, or counsel wants it preserved either way, counsel states an objection. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2), an objection “must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds,” and it “must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” California’s deposition statute is to the same effect: the deposition proceeds subject to the objection, unless the objecting party demands that it be suspended to seek a protective order. The court resolves the dispute later. In court proceedings, Standard 2.11 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration tells counsel to direct a disagreement with the interpretation to the court, not to the interpreter.

Put the original word on the record. A bare objection gives the court nothing to decide, because the transcript is in English. Working from the check interpreter’s note, counsel should state the foreign-language word or phrase, have it spelled for the reporter, and give both renderings: the record interpreter’s and the check interpreter’s. This is practice, not a rule requirement, but the guide models the pattern. Its sample language for a correction names the original word (“When the witness said ‘house,’ they meant to say ‘cottage’”), and for a term with no translation it says to leave the word in the source language and spell it for the court reporter. For a long passage, the written record cannot capture the original, and a recording is the only way to show what the witness said.

Keep the Check Interpreter and the Neutral Interpreter Separate

California’s rule for court interpreters requires them to be impartial, to avoid even the appearance of bias, and to disclose any actual or apparent conflict of interest (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.890(c)). A check interpreter works for one party, so the roles do not mix. The same person should not serve as a check interpreter for one party and as the neutral interpreter in the same case, in either order. The Judicial Council’s guide tells interpreters of rarer languages to take care not to work outside court on a case they will interpret for in court, and says that where a shortage forces an interpreter to work both sides of a case, strict neutrality and confidentiality are required.

The federal court in Advanced Technology Incubator, Inc. v. Sharp Corp., 701 F. Supp. 2d 861 (E.D. Tex. 2010), applied the same idea. An interpreter had served as a check interpreter for Sharp during depositions of its witnesses and had interpreted privileged conversations between those witnesses and Sharp’s counsel while preparing for the depositions. When Sharp proposed him as its trial interpreter, the court disqualified him and continued the trial so Sharp could find a replacement. It found no actual bias, but held that his service as trial interpreter “would raise an appearance of impropriety as to impartiality and conflict of interest.”

What to Settle Before the Deposition

Match the credential and the dialect. Where the language has a court certification, use a check interpreter who holds it, and one who speaks the witness’s dialect.

Tell the other side. Notify opposing counsel and the court reporter that a check interpreter will attend, and identify them by name.

Agree how concerns are raised. The check interpreter passes counsel a note with the exact foreign-language word and a proposed rendering, and counsel decides whether to object. The check interpreter does not interject. Agree in advance how the interpreters will confer if a rendering is questioned.

Prepare both interpreters. Send the exhibits, names, and technical terms to the record interpreter and the check interpreter alike.

Record the foreign-language testimony. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(B), a party may designate an additional recording method with prior notice to the deponent and the other parties, at its own expense. A recording is what lets anyone check a disputed rendering later. In state court, check the equivalent rule.

Keep the roles separate. Do not use the same person as both a check interpreter and the neutral interpreter in the case, in either order.

Interpretation errors happen, they are far easier to fix when they are caught on the spot, and the transcript will not tell you which answers are wrong. A check interpreter is how counsel hears what the witness said, early enough to do something about it. Kaplan Interpreting Services provides court-certified deposition interpreters, both as record interpreters and as check interpreters. Share the language and dialect, the date, the expected length, and which role you need.

Not legal advice. Standards vary by jurisdiction.