Lost in Translation: Why Family Members Shouldn't Interpret in Mediation

An experience that seems almost universal across immigrant families is having children interpret conversations or translate documents. While this is arguably acceptable in occasional, low-stakes situations, relying on family members as interpreters should be a last resort in legal contexts such as mediation. Why does it happen so often? Is it simply a matter of convenience, or does it reflect deeper systemic limits on interpreter certification? This post explores those questions through Ileana Dominguez-Urban's “The Messenger as the Medium of Communication: The Use of Interpreters in Mediation” (1997), examining how an interpreter can shape the course of a mediation.

Mediation and Non-English Speakers

Mediation is a structured legal process in which a neutral third party—the mediator—helps disputing parties have a conversation aimed at reaching a mutual agreement. For mediation to be both effective and meaningful, everyone involved must understand not only each other's motives but also the literal content of the conversation. Tone and word choice carry real weight, and small details can shift the direction of a mediation if they are misinterpreted. In Spanish, for example, él lo rompió (he broke it) is not the same as se rompió (it broke); one assigns blame and the other does not. For participants who do not speak English, a language barrier can hinder understanding, compromise the fairness of the process, and ultimately render the mediation ineffective.

Limits on Federally Certified Interpreters

Dominguez-Urban observed that the racial and ethnic demographics of the United States had expanded substantially by the time she wrote, and that remains true today. Despite the many languages spoken in this country, federal court interpreter certification has only ever been developed for three of them: Spanish, Navajo, and Haitian Creole. The Navajo and Haitian Creole programs are no longer offered, which leaves Spanish as the only language with an active federal certification program (United States Courts, n.d.).

Parties may of course work with interpreters who hold other credentials, but the more advanced an interpreter's skills, the more effectively they can facilitate communication. Interpreters need an outstanding memory and must be exceptionally skilled listeners, able to process the next sentence while simultaneously monitoring their own interpretation for accuracy. Certified interpreters are the people best qualified for this work; unfortunately, they are not always the ones in the room.

When There Is No Certified Interpreter

Friends, Relatives, and Volunteers

In most mediations, the mediator is responsible for arranging interpretation when it is needed. Before confirming an interpreter, the mediator should determine whether that person meets the standard of a qualified interpreter: someone able to interpret “effectively, accurately, and impartially,” using any necessary specialized vocabulary. That definition comes from the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (28 C.F.R. § 36.104; see also ADA Requirements: Effective Communication), and it is widely borrowed as a practical benchmark for interpretation generally. Many bilingual people are fluent in two languages but lack the training and cognitive skills that formal legal interpretation demands (Dominguez-Urban, 1997), which disqualifies some well-meaning volunteers.

Family members raise a further problem. Authorities have long warned that friends or relatives may add to, or subtract from, what the mediator or the opposing party is actually saying (Jandt, 1990; Gonzalez et al., 1991; Hewitt, 1995; Rosen, 1985). The Justice Department has taken the position that friends and relatives are generally not qualified to interpret precisely because of outside factors such as emotional involvement, which put impartiality at risk (Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability, 1991). Using a family member may be the most convenient option, but it is not a recommended one, and some mediators will not approve it.

The Mediator as Interpreter

Given how difficult it can be to secure a qualified interpreter, a bilingual mediator may be tempted to take on both roles. Dominguez-Urban argues that they should not, for several reasons. First, the mediator would be forced to multitask, which, neurologically speaking, means switching back and forth between two tasks rather than performing them at once. That creates problems throughout the mediation and becomes especially risky during heated moments, when conversations are easiest to misinterpret and hardest to keep under control. Second, a dual role puts neutrality at risk: a party who watches the mediator speak for the other side may reasonably stop seeing that mediator as neutral. Even someone who is both a skilled interpreter and a skilled mediator is unlikely to do either job well while doing the other.

Conclusion

The racial and ethnic demographics of the United States have continued to expand, yet federal interpreter certification remains limited to a handful of languages—and, in practice, to one. That gap is a real barrier for people who do not speak English. It points to a clear need: encourage more people to pursue careers in interpretation and expand federal certification to additional languages. In mediation, where communication is the entire mechanism, interpretation is not a logistical detail. Agreement depends on mutual understanding, and parties cannot agree to something they were never able to understand. Raising awareness of this problem is the first step toward changing it.