What is the best practice with regard to use of bilingual staff vs. interpretation through a third person?
October 12, 2007 8:33 AM Subscribe
When dealing with someone who does not speak English, is it preferable to have a bilingual staff person deal directly with the person in their primary language, or is the use of an interpreter preferred?
My co-workers and I were having a discussion at work about whether Spanish-speaking clients should be assigned to Spanish-speaking attorneys. The alternative is to have clients randomly assigned, and if the attorney does not speak Spanish, then the office's support staff serve as interpreters.
It seemed obvious to me that a person is better served when they can work with an attorney who speaks their language, rather than having to go through an interpreter. However, a co-worker questioned the "cultural competence" of the staff who felt this way. The implication, I think, was that we were trying to segregate a certain population, or that the non-Spanish speaking attorneys (who were all white) just didn't want to deal with "those people." I'm not sure. It was weird and I was kind of offended. The conversation only involved Spanish because we have several Spanish speaking attorneys, but no other languages. We use a service called Language Line to translate for other clients who do not speak English, because there is no staff to do so.
So, am I wrong? Was I being culturally incompetent? I would love it if someone had a "best practices" type answer from experts on this issue. Answers along the lines of "well personally, I think . . ." wouldn't be as helpful to me.
My co-workers and I were having a discussion at work about whether Spanish-speaking clients should be assigned to Spanish-speaking attorneys. The alternative is to have clients randomly assigned, and if the attorney does not speak Spanish, then the office's support staff serve as interpreters.
It seemed obvious to me that a person is better served when they can work with an attorney who speaks their language, rather than having to go through an interpreter. However, a co-worker questioned the "cultural competence" of the staff who felt this way. The implication, I think, was that we were trying to segregate a certain population, or that the non-Spanish speaking attorneys (who were all white) just didn't want to deal with "those people." I'm not sure. It was weird and I was kind of offended. The conversation only involved Spanish because we have several Spanish speaking attorneys, but no other languages. We use a service called Language Line to translate for other clients who do not speak English, because there is no staff to do so.
So, am I wrong? Was I being culturally incompetent? I would love it if someone had a "best practices" type answer from experts on this issue. Answers along the lines of "well personally, I think . . ." wouldn't be as helpful to me.
Best answer: Great question. (Don't sweat the cultural competence dig -- maybe you were, maybe you weren't, but these are complicated questions, and there's no way for anyone -- including the person who called you out this time -- to always know the perfect answer.)
There are many factors in attorney assignment. One is definitely language. Other include -- expertise in the problem area; attorney-staff resources (who has time, who's burned out); attorney-staff preferences (e.g. does a the Spanish speaking attorney want to do lots of Spanish speaking clients, or do they find it exhausting or boring to speak Spanish all day). I think it's important not to have a definitive rule.
To make it a bit more tangible -- in our office, many Spanish speaking clients come in with wage and hour problems. We consciously hired a Spanish speaking attorney to head up that issue area, and the intake person is also Spanish speaking. So when Spanish speaking clients come in with those problems, the balance tips toward assigning them to one of those two people.
I'm the disability person, and I don't speak Spanish. But if a Spanish speaking person comes in with a disability discrimination problem, unless it's an easy one, they eventually get assigned to me and I work with them with a translator. But it's a messy human world -- the client may come in and explain it somewhat incompletely, speak to the Spanish speaking attorney, who then figures out it should go to me.
It goes the other way -- if someone needs a disability accommodation (sign language, enlarged type), and are working with the wage and hour attorney, or the sex discrimination attorney, or whatever, then that attorney needs to provide that.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 8:58 AM on October 12, 2007
There are many factors in attorney assignment. One is definitely language. Other include -- expertise in the problem area; attorney-staff resources (who has time, who's burned out); attorney-staff preferences (e.g. does a the Spanish speaking attorney want to do lots of Spanish speaking clients, or do they find it exhausting or boring to speak Spanish all day). I think it's important not to have a definitive rule.
To make it a bit more tangible -- in our office, many Spanish speaking clients come in with wage and hour problems. We consciously hired a Spanish speaking attorney to head up that issue area, and the intake person is also Spanish speaking. So when Spanish speaking clients come in with those problems, the balance tips toward assigning them to one of those two people.
I'm the disability person, and I don't speak Spanish. But if a Spanish speaking person comes in with a disability discrimination problem, unless it's an easy one, they eventually get assigned to me and I work with them with a translator. But it's a messy human world -- the client may come in and explain it somewhat incompletely, speak to the Spanish speaking attorney, who then figures out it should go to me.
It goes the other way -- if someone needs a disability accommodation (sign language, enlarged type), and are working with the wage and hour attorney, or the sex discrimination attorney, or whatever, then that attorney needs to provide that.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 8:58 AM on October 12, 2007
I think the dig about cultural competence was completely unnecessary. I'm a native Spanish speaker, and I think both scenarios have their pros and cons. Ultimately, my main concern in that situation would be that I was being assigned a Spanish-speaking attorney not because s/he is the most qualified to handle my case, but just because s/he speaks Spanish.
I'm sure there are others who would prefer to just be assigned a fluent Spanish speaker rather than have to go thru an interpreter.
In the end, I think it should be up to the client. It's unrealistic to think that out of such a large population, everyone is going to have the same preferences.
posted by DrGirlfriend at 9:18 AM on October 12, 2007
I'm sure there are others who would prefer to just be assigned a fluent Spanish speaker rather than have to go thru an interpreter.
In the end, I think it should be up to the client. It's unrealistic to think that out of such a large population, everyone is going to have the same preferences.
posted by DrGirlfriend at 9:18 AM on October 12, 2007
Agree that there are pros and cons to both scenarios. I also agree that it is wise to be sensitive to the possible perception of segregation.
If it were my firm, I would have an "office policy" of assigning the most relevant attorney regardless of language, but also invite clients to request a fluent Spanish speaker if preferred. And then be very gracious about accommodating this request.
I think that point-blank asking clients "do you want a Spanish speaker or not" as soon as they walk through the door is somewhat prejudicial, if you're trying to be sensitive to discrimination.
posted by desuetude at 9:40 AM on October 12, 2007
If it were my firm, I would have an "office policy" of assigning the most relevant attorney regardless of language, but also invite clients to request a fluent Spanish speaker if preferred. And then be very gracious about accommodating this request.
I think that point-blank asking clients "do you want a Spanish speaker or not" as soon as they walk through the door is somewhat prejudicial, if you're trying to be sensitive to discrimination.
posted by desuetude at 9:40 AM on October 12, 2007
Best answer: I'm a translator (not interpreter). Everything ClaudiaCenter said sounds right on.
The question of whether to use a Spanish-speaking lawyer or LanguageLine can be answered through another question: what will best serve the client? All other things being equal, a Spanish-speaking lawyer will. With LanguageLine, you're playing the telephone game—literally over the telephone—with a change in languages thrown in (with an interpreter who may not specialize in legal matters). Something is going to get lost.
Obviously all other things are not always equal, and that's when you make your judgment call. But ask yourself this: if you were in Mexico and needed a lawyer, would you want to talk with someone directly—even if you knew he didn't specialize in your issue—or talk to someone remote over the phone, and then hand the handset over to the guy in front of you and hope your message was conveyed accurately? IANAL, but I can imagine that having a bilingual lawyer work outside his specialty to "pre-process" Spanish speakers on behalf of a monolingual English lawyer would make the client feel more at ease and do a better job of extracting relevant legal information than a remote interpreter.
The line about "cultural competence" sounds like an oblique way of saying "political correctness," for which I have no patience.
posted by adamrice at 9:44 AM on October 12, 2007
The question of whether to use a Spanish-speaking lawyer or LanguageLine can be answered through another question: what will best serve the client? All other things being equal, a Spanish-speaking lawyer will. With LanguageLine, you're playing the telephone game—literally over the telephone—with a change in languages thrown in (with an interpreter who may not specialize in legal matters). Something is going to get lost.
Obviously all other things are not always equal, and that's when you make your judgment call. But ask yourself this: if you were in Mexico and needed a lawyer, would you want to talk with someone directly—even if you knew he didn't specialize in your issue—or talk to someone remote over the phone, and then hand the handset over to the guy in front of you and hope your message was conveyed accurately? IANAL, but I can imagine that having a bilingual lawyer work outside his specialty to "pre-process" Spanish speakers on behalf of a monolingual English lawyer would make the client feel more at ease and do a better job of extracting relevant legal information than a remote interpreter.
The line about "cultural competence" sounds like an oblique way of saying "political correctness," for which I have no patience.
posted by adamrice at 9:44 AM on October 12, 2007
There's also the "how good is your second language" question. (I've seen this discussion as it affects ASL and health care or law enforcement, but I think the same principle applies here.) In theory, going through an interpreter is more cumbersome and maybe less private-feeling than speaking directly to the service provider you're working with. In practice, if your lawyer's Spanish is non-native, it may be less effective than going through an interpreter.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 1:41 PM on October 12, 2007
posted by spaceman_spiff at 1:41 PM on October 12, 2007
I'm a Spanish speaking attorney.
I have to say that putting the client with the Spanish speaker will be better in every single situation where alternative counsel is of equal legal competence.
Whoever called you culturally incompetent is likely some militant or over-sensitive moron.
I am able to bond with my Spanish-speaking clients in a way that would be impossible if an interpreter was interposed.
posted by Mr_Crazyhorse at 6:30 PM on October 12, 2007
I have to say that putting the client with the Spanish speaker will be better in every single situation where alternative counsel is of equal legal competence.
Whoever called you culturally incompetent is likely some militant or over-sensitive moron.
I am able to bond with my Spanish-speaking clients in a way that would be impossible if an interpreter was interposed.
posted by Mr_Crazyhorse at 6:30 PM on October 12, 2007
Response by poster: Thanks for the great answers. We probably missed some obvious possible solutions (like ask the client) b/c it's kind of a loaded issue for some people, for reasons that still aren't clear to me. I think it's likely a PC, "over-sensitive moron" problem as some here suggested.
Anyway, the point about the best-qualified atty is a good one, but we're a general practice with little specialization so for most cases, any atty would be as good as another, legally. There is some specialization, and those of us who wanted a preference for assigning Spanish-speaking attys to Spanish-speaking clients agreed that wouldn't always be appropriate if there is an "expert" in the legal issue who does not speak Spanish.
posted by Mavri at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2007
Anyway, the point about the best-qualified atty is a good one, but we're a general practice with little specialization so for most cases, any atty would be as good as another, legally. There is some specialization, and those of us who wanted a preference for assigning Spanish-speaking attys to Spanish-speaking clients agreed that wouldn't always be appropriate if there is an "expert" in the legal issue who does not speak Spanish.
posted by Mavri at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
For this to work well, your front-desk person (or whomever answers the phone) needs to be bilingual in a fairly sensitive way, to help people make the choice that will make them happy, rather than making the choice that they feel pressured into making.
posted by Forktine at 8:46 AM on October 12, 2007