Translation Protocol Judicial Council of California

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Translation Protocol

Judicial Council of California

The Judicial Council of California is the policymaking body of the California judicial

branch. It is responsible for the provision of statewide judicial branch information in a

manner that ensures meaningful access to the information for all Californians. The

Council is responsible for the development and online publication of Judicial Council

forms, the California Courts website and all of its content, statewide informational

publications, and other written and audiovisual resources of statewide applicability.

The Council is committed to providing quality language access services to limited English

proficient (LEP) individuals in California, including the translation of statewide materials

into the languages most commonly spoken in the state. This Translation Protocol sets

forth comprehensive policies and procedures regarding the identification of resources

for translation, languages into which designated information will be translated, quality

standards for translations, translation processes, and the availability and dissemination

of translated materials.

This Translation Protocol addresses the following:

I. Policy Guidelines and Directives

II. Identification of Documents for Translation

III. Determination of Languages for Translation

IV. Qualifications of Translation Providers

V. Consideration of Translation Costs

VI. Machine Translation

VII. Translation Glossaries

VIII. The Translation Process

IX. Posting and Dissemination of Translated Materials

X. Contact Information for Translation Requests and Issues

XI. Appendices

Policy Guidelines and Directives

The Strategic Plan for Language Access in the California Courts (LAP) requires, under

Recommendation #36, that the Judicial Council “develop and formalize a translation

protocol for Judicial Council translations of forms, written materials and audiovisual

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

tools.”

The same recommendation discusses the inclusion in the protocol of required

qualifications for translators, the prioritization and coordination of the materials to be

translated, and oversight of any translation efforts.

Once the protocol is established, the LAP encourages individual courts to establish

similar procedures for the development and translation of local forms, as well as written

and audiovisual materials (including web-based information). Other recommendations

in the LAP address the posting of Judicial Council translated materials for the public, as

well as the creation of samples and templates of informational materials to share with

local courts for their adaptation to meet local needs and resources.

In accordance with the Language Access Plan as well as existing federal guidelines and

best practices, this Translation Protocol is predicated on the following policy

determinations:

1. The Judicial Council will establish a standing Translation Advisory Committee in

charge of administering this Translation Protocol and all translation processes and

quality-assurance mechanisms established herein. This committee will be charged

with implementing a standardized translation process for all Judicial Council

translations, including providing oversight of translation requests from local

courts, Judicial Council departments, and the public. The Translation Advisory

Committee will also be in charge of the continued monitoring, maintenance, and

updating of existing translations.

2. Every translation service provider contracting with the Judicial Council must meet

minimum qualification requirements as established in the Translation Protocol.

3. Statewide standardization of forms, informational and educational materials, and

other tools to increase access is central to the cost-efficient deployment of

translation resources. Creating statewide translations that can be adapted by local

courts with no or minimal cost will reduce costs at the local level while ensuring

that translation initiatives are successful in providing access to court users

throughout California.

While not written documents, audio or video information, resources, and instructions are based on

written scripts, which themselves must be translated. As encouraged in the LAP and this Translation

Protocol, alternative ways of delivering educational information to the public, especially to low literacy

populations and speakers of languages that do not have a written component, are key for successful

language access strategies. Therefore, for purposes of this Translation Protocol, the term “documents”

and “written materials” includes written content that may be delivered through audiovisual means, not

just in printed or text form. It is also intended to include signage at the various Judicial Council locations.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

4. The prioritization of translations must be based on a number of factors as

delineated in the Translation Protocol, including need, frequency of use, and

usability of the document by its intended user. Plain language documents

addressing high-volume case types and processes will be prioritized.

5. Steps taken in the prioritization process will identify “vital documents” as defined

under federal and LAP guidelines and should address the most effective manner

(from the LEP user’s perspective) of delivering the information in other languages.

While full translation of a vital document may often be appropriate, the translation

assessment process will include usability and other factors to determine if other

strategies for delivering the information to LEP users are more appropriate.

6. While the LAP recommends that translation efforts target up to 5 languages other

than English,

Judicial Council translations of materials with statewide applicability

should target as many languages as feasible, with at minimum enough languages

to address the top 5 languages in every jurisdiction in the state. The determination

of the number of languages into which a particular document will be translated

must include an analysis of factors such as criticality of the document, frequency of

use (including use by particular LEP populations), statewide applicability of the

information, and others as laid out in the Translation Protocol.

7. Standardized multilingual glossaries are critical to ensuring consistent and high-

quality translations. Glossaries should be available not only in all languages for

which translations are provided, but also for those languages for which translation

resources do not yet permit full document translation. The Translation Advisory

Committee will establish mechanisms for obtaining input on glossary terms from

language experts such as translators, court interpreters and other experienced

linguists.

8. Automatic machine translation programs should not be used as the sole

mechanism for translating Judicial Council information and materials. When their

use is determined to provide adequate language access where none would

otherwise be available, clear disclaimer language must be provided to users to

alert them about the lack of quality control with machine translation. These

disclaimer messages must be in the user’s primary language, translated by

qualified translation providers.

See definition of “Language threshold,” at LAP, p. 27.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Identification of Documents for Translation

The Judicial Council has a significant volume of written information and resources it

provides to court users and legal professionals, primarily via the California Courts

website. The information provided to the public varies significantly, not only with regard

to the intended audience for the documents (such as lawyers, litigants, jurors, court

staff, judicial officers, etc.), but also subject matter, scope, and intent of the information

provided (e.g., educational, historical, instructional, etc.).

Because the goal of this Translation Protocol is to establish a process for ensuring that

LEP court users have meaningful access to the California judicial branch, the protocol

focuses on those vital documents

regularly encountered by LEP persons accessing

Judicial Council information. In particular, this protocol primarily addresses:

 Judicial Council forms;

 The California Courts Online Self-Help Center and all its informational,

instructional and educational written and audiovisual content; and

 Judicial Council educational or outreach communications intended at informing

the public of their legal rights and obligations, language access services, and

language access complaints.

The Translation Advisory Committee will, at all times, have the responsibility of ensuring

that the list of possible written resources to translate is updated regularly to include any

additional vital documents under the purview of the Judicial Council that should be

considered for translation.

Determination of Vital Documents – Factors to Consider

There are several factors that should be taken into consideration when determining if a

particular document or other tool is vital for the purposes of translation:

 The criticality of a document to a particular process (e.g., a summons, which is

used when initiating a case and to inform the parties of the commencement of

the action and their rights and responsibilities);

At http://www.courts.ca.gov/.

See Appendix A for DOJ and other guidance regarding what constitutes a “vital” document.

Because the Judicial Council itself is not involved in individual cases filed with the courts of the state, this

protocol does not address translation issues related to individual case-specific documents.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

 The criticality of the information provided to an LEP court user’s access to the

court system (e.g., information about availability of self-help services, legal relief,

court locations, language services available, etc.);

 The criticality of a document from an informational or educational perspective

(e.g., instructions to complete a critical form; instructions for complying with a

court order);

 The overall frequency of use of a document by all litigants, either because the

document is common to all or many case types (e.g., fee waiver forms, which are

common to all civil cases and used by a significant number of litigants) or

because it is a required document for all filings in a particularly common case

type (e.g., petition for divorce/legal separation/nullity, which is a required first

step in all divorce filings).

 The frequency of use by self-represented litigants given that, without a lawyer,

LEP self-represented litigants face additional obstacles to obtaining access to the

court system;

 The frequency of use by LEP litigants in particular, such as in cases that regularly

require interpreters (e.g., Special Immigrant Juvenile Status petitions);

 The practicality of translating a form or document that may be, in its original

English format, not accessible from a readability perspective or would, when

translated, be inaccessible from the perspective of a particular LEP group;

 The intent and effect of the document. Possible questions to consider include:

o Does the document help court users address safety concerns, such as

protection from abuse, harm to a child, or protection for victims or

vulnerable adults?

o Does that document include information regarding possible loss of liberty

(incarceration)?

o Does the document address matters involving children (e.g., paternity,

custody and parenting time; removal from home)?

o Does the document address possible loss of real or personal property

(eviction) or loss of a license or other benefit?

 The consistency or longevity of the document—will the document remain

consistent for a considerable amount of time? If not, can translation of updates

be done in ways that minimize expense?

Given limited resources and the significant expense of translation efforts, it is important

to prioritize the translations to be undertaken, in order to ensure that those documents

that are most in demand and will be most useful to the LEP population are addressed

first. Before significant resources are invested in translation work, the Translation

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Advisory Committee should develop a priority ranking of documents for translation

(possibly through a translation rubric or other tool), based on the factors discussed.

In addition to utilizing the factors above to assess if a document is “vital” for purposes of

translation, DOJ guidance specifically cites the following as vital documents:

 Educational or outreach communications intended to inform the public of their

legal rights and obligations,

 Information regarding language access services,

 Language access complaints,

 Written notices of rights and responsibilities,

 Letters that require the LEP person to respond, and

 Information delivered on court websites.

To the extent Judicial Council forms include the type of information and notices

addressed in this specific DOJ guidance, they may be considered to be vital documents

for purposes of translation. An effective strategy already utilized by the Judicial Council

on a number of its forms is to target particularly critical documents that contain

important warnings to parties regarding their rights and obligations (e.g., a summons),

and translate them in a bilingual format (English and the other language side by side, or

one above the other). In the example of the summons, this bilingual format ensures that

upon service of the summons, LEP users are immediately informed that the action filed

can affect their legal rights and obligations. Existing examples of these strategies are the

Summons – Family Law (Form FL-110) and Summons (Form SUM-100).

In certain instances, a document may contain vital information but not be considered

vital in its totality, or it may simply be too large to translate entirely. In those situations,

it may be more cost-efficient and effective to only translate the critical information, as

contemplated by DOJ Guidance. It may also prove more effective to produce shorter

texts with the critical information and have those translated.

Other strategies to

address the provision of critical notices in additional languages or to warn litigants of

the importance of a document, as well as the inclusion of notices and locations of

available translations, should be explored to expand the accessibility of vital materials in

as many languages as feasible.

For example, the California LAP, which though highly relevant to LEP court users, is over 100 pages. In

this situation, the Judicial Council translated only the Executive Summary into the top 10 languages

spoken in the state. See Appendix A for a more in-depth discussion of DOJ Guidance in this respect.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Once the initial identification and assessment of documents for translation are

completed, the Translation Advisory Committee will create a plan to phase in additional

documents and languages over time, especially as new materials are developed. Any

additional documents targeted for translation should undergo the evaluation process

regarding criticality and appropriateness of translation as set forth in this protocol.

Tools for Reaching Low Literacy Populations or Speakers of Oral Languages

As acknowledged in the Language Access Plan and elsewhere in this protocol, the

development of translated materials is not limited to content delivered in printed or

written form. In efforts to reach all Californians, including low literacy English speakers,

low literacy LEP persons, and speakers of languages with no written component, it is

critical that alternative methods of delivering information be instituted. Short, simple,

and user-friendly video and audio recordings must be included in all translation efforts

as the Judicial Council, in accordance with LAP Recommendation #18, continues its

efforts to create standardized videos for court users.

Some strategies utilized by the Judicial Council to provide multilingual information in

non-written form range from the simple audio recording of the reading of critical

Judicial Council information forms

to more in-depth videos on the mediation process in

various case types.

Local courts have developed audiovisual PowerPoint presentations

to assist litigants with completing Judicial Council forms, as well as extensive tutorials

and orientation videos.

To the extent feasible, the Judicial Council should continue to

employ these methods and coordinate with courts already working on these tools, to

provide standardized information for statewide use and easily adaptable by all courts.

Whenever these tools are developed in plain English, they should be designated for

translation and undergo the translation process as delineated in this protocol.

Additionally, for videos and other audiovisual information, translation initiatives should

incorporate sign language interpreters on the screen to interpret the narration to deaf

See available recordings of domestic violence information forms at

http://www.courts.ca.gov/1271.htm#acc15131 and Spanish at

http://www.courts.ca.gov/1271.htm#acc15131?rdeLocaleAttr=es.

AT http://www.courts.ca.gov/20614.htm.

Contra Costa Superior Court’s Virtual Self-Help Center has these tools and more. See for e.g.,

http://basic.cc-

courthelp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=3138&parentID=2999&stopRedirect=1

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

and hard of hearing viewers. Any interpreters used for this purpose should be certified

by the Judicial Council and qualified to interpret the material in question.

Determination of Languages for Translation

Once written and audiovisual tools are identified for translation, the Judicial Council

must determine the languages into which materials should be translated. The LAP

addresses the language threshold for translations as “[i]n English and up to five other

languages, based on local community needs assessed through collaboration with and

information from justice partners, including legal services providers, community-based

organizations and other entities working with LEP populations.”

In the case of the Judicial Council, which provides materials and forms for statewide use,

the languages for translations should, at minimum, include the top 5 languages other

than English spoken in every county in the state, which in practicality may mean

translating beyond the top 5 languages other than English statewide. The Language

Need and Interpreter Use Study,

carried out by the Judicial Council every 5 years, can

provide the demographic information needed to determine the languages that meet an

established threshold for translation. In addition, efforts undertaken by the Judicial

Council, in response to LAP recommendations addressing expansion of data sources to

more accurately identify changing language needs throughout the state,

will provide

the Translation Advisory Committee information regarding emerging trends to

determine if the languages delineated for translation should be updated and modified

with more frequency than the five-year period in between language need and

interpreter use studies.

These language threshold numbers are minimum requirements only; it is the intent of

this protocol that, whenever possible, as many languages as practicable be included,

particularly for critical documents and information. To that end, the Translation

Advisory Committee will coordinate with the above-referenced implementation efforts

under the LAP regarding the improvement and augmentation of data collection efforts

to determine whether certain critical materials should be translated into additional

Best practices in the production of videos for use by the general public, including any special

considerations for the use of non-spoken language professionals, should be followed.

LAP at 27.

The most recent study was concluded in 2015, and is available at

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2015-Language-Need-and-Interpreter-Use-Study.pdf.

See LAP Recommendations #6 and #7, addressing data collection expansion and the need to look at

sources of data beyond the more traditional U.S. Census and ACS data.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

languages.

Where translation costs become prohibitive, alternatives, such as those

discussed elsewhere in the Translation Protocol and Translation Action Plan,

should be

explored to provide at least critical information and informational resources in more

languages.

Qualifications of Translation Providers

As the LAP reiterates throughout its provisions, to ensure meaningful language access

the Judicial Council and the courts must provide high-quality language access services.

Therefore, all Judicial Council translations must be performed by highly qualified

translators.

The LAP recommends that translators be accredited by the American Translators

Association (ATA)

and have a court or legal specialization; in the alternative,

translators must have been determined to be qualified based on experience, education,

and references.

Generally, when not ATA certified, translators should possess a

degree or certificate from an accredited university (if in the USA), or the equivalent (in a

foreign country) in translation and/or linguistic studies, or equivalent experience as a

translator.

Key factors to consider when choosing a qualified translator include:

 Language match: Ensure the translator’s language match is the appropriate one

required for the job. ATA certification, for example, is provided not only for a

particular language pair (such as English and Spanish) but also in a particular

direction, such as from English to Spanish (or vice versa, or both). The translator

chosen should be certified or otherwise qualified in both the relevant language

pair and the appropriate direction.

The Judicial Council should consider enhancing the scope of the Language Need and Interpreter Use

Study to capture data that may be particularly useful in making translation decisions.

A Translation Action Plan for prioritization of translations during Phases 1 and 2 of the LAP

Implementation has been created as a complement to this Translation Protocol. It includes overall

document categories for prioritization and strategies for creating cost-efficient and effective translations.

At www.atanet.org.

Though a credentialed court interpreter may also be a qualified translator, the skills required for

competency in translation are very different from those required of interpreters. Therefore, not all

certified interpreters are qualified to perform translation of legal documents, and therefore should only

be used as translators when also qualified, through education and/or experience, to translate.

See discussion in Guide to Translation of Legal Materials, National Center for State Courts (April 2011).

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

 Level of qualification: The translator’s level of qualification, education,

experience and specialization should be carefully examined given the level of

complexity of Judicial Council forms, and the specialized nature of the

information provided in Judicial Council informational and educational materials

and tools.

 Membership in a professional body: As recommended by the LAP, translators

used should be certified by the American Translators Association (ATA), which

has a translation certification exam (currently available in more than 25 language

pairs), Code of Ethics, continuing education requirements, and disciplinary

power over its members. For languages for which there are no certified

translators, the Judicial Council should employ a translator who is an ATA

member, and has therefore agreed to adhere to the ATA’s Code of Ethics.

 Access to translation technology tools: Most professional translators have

advanced translation software and technologies that enable them to work more

efficiently and effectively. Translation memory software, for example, uses

stored memory to reuse already-translated content in subsequent translations,

obviating the need to re-translate the same text over and over again and making

translations more standardized, efficient, and cost-effective.

In addition, qualified translation providers should incorporate into their services a

quality assurance process and review by a second, similarly certified and qualified

translator. It is necessary, then, that qualifications of both primary and secondary

translators be closely examined before entering into a translation contract.

Consideration of Translation Costs

Translation work consists of a great deal more than the standard “per word” charge (or

“per hour” depending on the translation provider), which itself can vary widely between

translators and languages to be translated. In addition to charges per word of original

text or per hour of work, other common costs to expect as part of a translation contract

(or to ensure are included in the quoted “per word” or “per hour” charge) include:

 Editing, including tailoring language to readers; ensuring smoothness of text;

checking syntax and idioms, style, spelling, typography, and punctuation; and

copyediting and proofreading for consistency.

 Reviewing, which ensures that the translated text accurately reflects the original

text, meets the readability criteria appropriate for the text in question, and is

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

culturally competent. The reviewer must compare the source text with the

translation, making corrections and editorial improvements where necessary.

 Proofreading, which is the final check for any typographical, spelling, or other

errors. It does not address the accuracy of the translation, which should already

be complete and accurate.

 Formatting, which results in uniformity in the presentation, organization and

arrangement of the document, as well as its layout and style. Formatting may

also include the redesign of a document so that a bilingual format can be

followed, as opposed to the more standard monolingual format.

For translation of texts that are delivered via tools other than print or web, such as

audio scripts or videos, some of these costs may be different. For example, whereas

formatting of a document may not be critical for a video script, the translation vendor

may have to assist with adaptation of the captions, fitting the images/video provided,

particularly for languages for which the Judicial Council does not already have staff that

can assist with those steps. Similarly, some translation vendors may offer voice talent

services for recording of audio or video voiceover in the various languages into which

the material has been translated.

Translation Glossaries

Translation, like interpretation, is not an exact science. In their work, translators focus

primarily on translating the meaning of a given text, not on a word-by-word rendition of

content. In addition, different translators may prefer different word choices for their

translations. Having inconsistent terminology used on Judicial Council forms and

materials can be very confusing for consumers of court information, whether in English

or in any other language. It is essential that court users, already facing an unfamiliar and

As briefly discussed above, a bilingual (or multilingual) format displays the English and the non-English

translation side by side or one above the other on the document. An example of a bilingual format

(English/Spanish) is the Summons – Family Law (Form FL-110). With monolingual formatting, one

language appears on the document; the document is essentially a “mirror” to the English. Bilingual

formats allow all participants to have a clear understanding of the information, since the same form

contains all the same information. Other advantages: It allows English-speaking staff to assist LEP persons

with form completion; providing the text in English next to the foreign language text reduces the risk of

using a form in error and increases the likelihood that the form will be filled out in English. However,

bilingual formatting presents challenges with formatting of the original English document, as space for the

English text is severely reduced and the form can become overwhelming and confusing with text in

various languages.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

complex court system, be provided with user-friendly, understandable and consistent

information throughout their encounter with the system.

In order to ensure that all the terminology used in Judicial Council translations is

standardized and consistent, the Judicial Council should develop and maintain glossaries

in all languages supported by the Judicial Council, including plain English. The Council

has already developed a plain language English glossary and an English-Spanish glossary

that provide consistent legal terminology in English and Spanish. Other possible current

sources of standardized legal terminology that may form the basis for glossaries in other

target languages include the Superior Court of Sacramento’s 12 foreign language

glossaries and the NCSC’s legal terminology glossaries in four languages on its public

website. Several state court interpreter programs have also developed legal glossaries in

a number of languages. In addition to creating glossaries for those languages addressed

by Judicial Council translations, the Judicial Council should strive to create glossaries in

other languages in order to provide them as a resource to speakers of those languages.

They should also be available to courts that may need to target those languages for

additional translation to address local LEP court user needs so that they may benefit

from standardization and consistency.

As detailed below in the steps of the translation process, the Judicial Council should

make available any existing glossaries to its translation vendors and require those

glossaries to be used. Where glossaries have not yet been developed, part of the

translation contract should include the requirement that translation agencies and

translators build legal terminology glossaries. Translation contracts should clearly

specify that the glossaries are to be the property of the Judicial Council and made freely

available to the public, the courts throughout the state, and all other translation

vendors employed by the Judicial Council.

The work of glossary development and maintenance involves close collaboration with

translation contractors to continually add to and refine the glossary based on new

documents translated. The Translation Advisory Committee will develop a process for

obtaining feedback and suggestions from court interpreters in the field on changes and

improvements to the various glossaries. Similarly, subject matter experts, bilingual in

the various languages targeted by the Council, should be engaged to assist in legal

review of translated terminology and to ensure accuracy of developed glossaries.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Machine Translation

Machine translation, the process of translation of text by a computer, with no human

involvement, is increasingly in use by businesses, government agencies, courts, and

others to make content (primarily web content) accessible in other languages. Although

machine translations can be fast and cost-effective, they often include inaccuracies,

especially with regard to complex text such as legal content. Not only are words and

phrases mistranslated, the systems and rules used by the technology cannot solve

ambiguity or translate nuances since they are unable to utilize experience and cultural

or content expertise in the manner that a translator can. In the legal system, these

translation errors can have dire consequences for LEP persons.

Machine translation can help with an initial translation of text, to expedite the

process, as long as a qualified human translator then carefully and fully reviews

and edits the translation as needed. Where machine translation features are

used on the Judicial Council website to give LEP users multi-lingual access to

information beyond the languages the Judicial Council is able to support through

the work of qualified translation providers, users of the machine translation

features should be notified of the possibility for errors and misinformation, as a

result. Disclaimer language regarding the potential for mistranslation when using

machine translation should be available in the user’s primary language.

The Translation Process

Step 1: Review and Prepare Document Prior to Translation

Before a document is sent out for translation, the English version must itself be of high

quality. This means the document must be:

 Reviewed for grammatical and typographical issues, having undergone the type

of rigorous copyediting generally performed for Judicial Council publications;

 Written in plain language,

with no or minimal (if necessary) use of legalese, in

the active voice, with simple sentences, short paragraphs, no jargon, no

abbreviations, and no use of acronyms.

 Within readability goals for the intended population, which for instructional and

educational materials should be aimed at a fifth-grade reading level.

See Appendix B for an overview of the translation process.

See Appendix D for a discussion of plain language principles.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

 Formatted as to allow for variances in other languages, such as longer text

(many languages can expand the required space for text by up to 30% for the

same content as in English), direction of text, etc.

 Checked for the use of consistent terminology within the document and

consistency with other documents in the same or related case types.

 Written with language that is general enough that it applies across courts and

counties, avoiding room numbers, locations, office designations, or other

specific language that changes from court to court. (This is particularly

important for documents that the Judicial Council intends to provide as

templates or as samples for local court adaptation.)

 Culturally competent, avoiding idiomatic expressions or colloquialisms

(expressions that do not have the same meaning in other languages and

cultures). If certain text is unavoidable, then special consideration should be

given to finding the best possible translation.

In addition to ensuring that the English document to be translated is of a high quality,

there are other steps in the preparation of the document that can assist the translation

process, particularly in terms of identifying efficiencies and cost savings. There may be

similar documents for which translation is needed that have only slight differences.

Repetitive language can be streamlined so that it can be translated only once. For

example, language that appears on most Judicial Council forms and has already been

translated can be provided to the translator (e.g., oaths, signature lines, warnings, etc.).

Additionally, repetitive language on form sets (such as divorce forms) need only be

translated once. Identification of these instances, before submitting a document or set

of documents for translations, will contribute to making the translation work most cost-

effective.

As the Judicial Council expands its efforts to develop information in alternative formats

to increase accessibility, such as audio or video recordings of generally applicable

information or other materials, particular care must be taken in the development of the

source English script. Script preparation and translation will have to consider cultural

and linguistic elements that might affect how the spoken word should be presented.

For example, a spoken word presentation might be in a different register than a form or

an information sheet.

Step 2. Select and Contract with Translation Vendor

As discussed above and recommended in the LAP, the Judicial Council should select a

professional translator, certified by the American Translators Association in the

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

language(s) in which they work, with a court or legal specialization. For languages that

are less common or for which there is a smaller market of professionals, a translator

may demonstrate competence through experience, education, and references.

When selecting and contracting with a translation agency or professional translator, the

agency or translator should agree to provide the initial translation and commit to using

any existing glossaries (or develop new ones) as described above, in order to ensure

consistency and standardization of translated terms. The translation agency or

translator should also commit to having a second independent professional translator

review the translation before delivering it to the Judicial Council. The qualifications of

the second translator should meet the requirements established in this protocol for all

translators. This secondary translator should also perform a cultural competency review

for the material being translated, to ensure it is appropriate for the intended LEP

population(s). After delivery to the Judicial Council, the agency or translator should be

willing to make corrections based on any concerns regarding the communication of legal

concepts and any errors found in the work of the translator or agency.

To best ensure the quality, accuracy and consistency of translations, the Judicial Council

should provide the translator or translation vendor with the following:

 Background on the purpose of the document, the audience, and other relevant

information,

 Any existing legal terminology glossaries already developed by the Judicial

Council,

 Instructions for consistent naming and identification of documents, so that all

translated documents include a footer with the name of the document, the date

of translation, and the language of translation, and

 A contact person to whom to direct inquiries regarding the translation process,

product, or subject matter questions regarding the English source material.

Depending on the material to be translated, the Judicial Council may request that the

translation contract include document formatting. If so, the contractor must adhere to

Judicial Council formatting standards and the final copy of the document must be

housed with, and be the property of, the Judicial Council. If the translation vendor is

approached by another entity requesting use of the material, the vendor must refer that

entity to the Judicial Council for permission to utilize the content and delineation of how

material may be used and/or modified, if at all.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Step 3. Legal Review of Translation

Once the final translation is received from the translation vendor, the Judicial Council

should conduct a legal review of the translation to ensure that all legal concepts have

been accurately communicated and no meaning has been lost in the translation.

Although highly qualified translators with legal or court specialization may be able to

adequately produce technical translations, professional translators are often not

attorneys and may miss legal nuances or distinctions that could significantly alter the

meaning of a document, especially court forms, which can be highly technical.

Therefore, it is critical that this additional review process be built in to any translation

projects. Attorneys on staff with the Judicial Council, bilingual and with near-native

fluency in the non-English language, may conduct this legal review. If no staff is available

for this task, the Judicial Council may have to hire an independent contractor to conduct

the review.

If errors are found through the legal review process, the Judicial Council will send the

edited documents to the translation vendor for correction and finalization. As detailed

above in the discussion on selecting and contracting with translation providers, this

additional step should be part of any translation contract.

Step 4. Finalization of Translated Documents by the Judicial Council

If formatting of the translation was not part of the deliverable by the translation

provider, the Judicial Council’s Editing and Graphics Group should format and finalize

the documents for posting and distribution. Documents that will be made available to

the public by the Judicial Council should be formatted according to the standards of the

agency. As discussed earlier, formatting can play a critical role in overall readability of a

document, so any formatting or graphics completed outside of the work of the

translation provider should be reviewed again in final format by a near-native speaker of

the language to ensure that readability has been maintained.

Step 5. Posting and Dissemination of Translated Documents

When a document is formally finalized, it may be made publicly available on the Judicial

Council’s website and/or on local court websites. A document may also be directly

provided to the local courts, justice partners, and community-based organizations

throughout the state, depending on the type of document and its intended use.

As provided for in several LAP recommendations, it is critical that there be

communication regarding the availability of multilingual information and the

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

dissemination of materials aimed at LEP court users. Recommendation #38 requires

Judicial Council staff to post on the California Courts website written translations of

forms and other materials for the public as they become available; Recommendation

#54 recommends the use of multilingual videos and audio recordings in court outreach

efforts; and Recommendation #67 recommends the creation of a statewide repository

of language access resources.

Step 6. Monitoring of Existing Translations, Updates Needed, and Identification of

Additional Materials for Translation

Statutes, court rules, policies and procedures change, as do court forms, instructions

and informational guides. While minor edits are generally easy to make on English

documents, those changes must be reflected on translated documents as well. Edits and

updates to existing translations should be completed by qualified translators, edited and

reviewed as previously described. While typically the fees charged for such updates are

much lower than the original translation, it is important to budget for these costs so

that translated forms and documents continue to be made available to LEP court users.

The Translation Advisory Committee will track these needed updates and ensure

completion, preferably at the same time or soon after changes are made to the English

source document. In order for updates to occur in a timely manner, the Translation

Advisory Committee will have to actively coordinate internally with the various Judicial

Council departments and committees in charge of developing forms and other

educational information.

In addition to ensuring all existing translations are maintained and up to date, the

Translation Advisory Committee will apply an approved evaluation rubric to identify

additional vital documents for translation as they are developed in English. Any

database or other system for maintaining records of translations shall be routinely

updated to reflect latest document versions, languages translated, and prospective

translations to be undertaken. The database should contain the following information

about each document:

 Name

 Date of creation of original document

 Author/Source of document

 Current location/URL for document

 Date of translation/language of translation

 Date of most recent update

 Translator/Reviewer

 Legal Reviewer, if any

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

 Any date-sensitive information (i.e., a particular piece of legislation or

reference that may change over time)

To ensure that the translation efforts of the Judicial Council result in actual

improvements in language access for LEP users throughout the state, any monitoring

efforts should include periodic reviews of the documents and their usage. Continued

review of the usability and accessibility of translated documents should be conducted by

holding focus groups of LEP court users, community-based agencies, and justice

partners and through surveys of courts and other providers. This data will help inform

further translation efforts by the Council.

Posting and Dissemination of Translated Materials

Once print and audio-visual materials are translated and finalized, the Judicial Council

will make them available to all local courts, justice partners and the public at large.

Those materials appropriate for inclusion in the online living tool kit will be immediately

posted in any of the tool kit sections for which they may be relevant. To the extent the

Judicial Council establishes other online repositories of translated information and

resources, multilingual materials will also be shared and made available on those

repositories as early as feasible.

Judicial Council staff will notify local courts and justice partners of the availability of

these translations via any established avenues of communication, including existing

listservs. Communications to courts and justice partners will encourage those agencies

and organizations to share the materials with community service providers in their area

and ensure dissemination of the information to LEP court users and the California public

at large.

Contact Information for Translation Requests and Issues

To request a translation, to report errors in existing translations, and for translation policy

questions, contact the Judicial Council’s Language Access Coordinator. Complaints related to

existing Judicial Council translations or failure by the Judicial Council to provide translations of

vital documents may be submitted using the Judicial Council Complaint Form, which will be

made available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/languageaccess.htm, or by requesting the

Complaint Form from the Language Access Coordinator at the contact information below.

Judicial Council of California

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Attn: Language Access Coordinator

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Appendix A: Guidance on What Constitutes “Vital” Documents

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued guidance on the translation of documents by

recipients of federal funds (which includes courts and the Judicial Council). Under DOJ

guidance, written materials that are considered vital should be translated into the non-

English language of each regularly encountered LEP group eligible to be served or likely

to be affected by the program or activity, in this case the Judicial Council. Per the DOJ, a

document is vital if it contains information that is critical for obtaining services or

providing awareness of rights, or is required by law.

Some examples of vital

documents under DOJ guidance applicable to the Judicial Council context include:

notices of rights; notices advising LEP persons of the availability of free language

services; complaint forms; and letters or notices that require a response from the LEP

court user. DOJ guidance discusses the factors to take into account when deciding if a

particular document is “vital” for purposes of translation, with the overall consideration

that vital documents are those that ensure an LEP person has “meaningful access” to a

particular program or service.

When documents contain both vital and non-vital information, such as documents that

are very large, or when a document is sent out to the general public and cannot

reasonably be translated into many languages, DOJ guidance provides that it may be

reasonable to simply translate the vital portion of the information. Programs may also

decide to provide multilingual information regarding where a LEP person might obtain

an interpretation or translation of the full document.

The ABA Standards for Providing Language Access in Courts (ABA Standards) provide

best practices for determining whether a document is vital for purposes of translation.

The ABA Standards divide vital documents into 3 categories: (1) court information, (2)

court forms, and (3) individualized documents. Since the Judicial Council does not deal

with case-specific information, as cases are handled at the local court level, only the first

two categories are applicable for purposes of this Translation Protocol. Local courts

developing their own translation protocols will want to address the handling of case-

specific documents, standards for translation of those materials, and admissibility of the

translations per statutory and rule of court requirements.

Commonly Asked Questions and Answers Regarding Limited English Proficient (LEP) Individuals, at

http://www.lep.gov/faqs/faqs.html#OneQ9.

67 Fed. Reg. 41455, 41463 (June 18, 2002).

Ibid.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Under the ABA Standards, written information about court services or programs,

including the use of written information to provide audio or video information, is critical

to meaningful access for LEP court users. Judicial Council web and printed materials and

videos, primarily posted in the Online Self-Help Center and also provided in other areas

of the California Courts site, provide information for court users about court processes,

rights, responsibilities, and how to seek relief. The ABA Standards go on to list

educational guides, self-help materials, and instructions as documents that should be

translated and widely distributed. Other documents to prioritize are those related to the

protection and safety of a litigant or a child. A court’s website content, to the extent it

is informational in nature, should be considered for translation as well and include plans

for regular updates and multilingual content development.

Court forms, per the ABA Standards, are vital to accessing the courts and protecting

rights. The Standards discuss pleading forms used to initiate or respond to a case as

vital. Although discussed in the context of case-specific documents, the ABA Standards

also address court orders as vital documents, critical to enforceability of court orders

and the administration of justice. While case-specific documents are not under the

purview of this protocol, Judicial Council forms, including court order forms, are, and

would likely be considered, vital documents for purposes of translation. Local courts

would then be responsible for translating any additional orders and findings not printed

on the Judicial Council form itself.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Appendix B – Overview of the Translation Process

Step 1: Review and Prepare Document Prior to Translation

When submitting a document for translation, the English version must be of high

quality. The document must be: (1) copyedited and free of errors; (2) in plain language;

(3) accessible from a readability perspective; (4) properly formatted; (5) consistent with

regard to terminology and other related documents; and (6) culturally competent.

Step 2. Select and Contract with Translation Vendor

The Judicial Council should select a professional translator, certified by the American

Translators Association in the language(s) in which they work with a court or legal

specialization. For languages that are less common or for which there is a smaller market

of professionals, a translator may demonstrate competence through experience,

education, and references. The contract with the translation provider should include: (1)

initial translation by a qualified translator; (2) use of a glossary of common terms; (3)

review by a second independent professional translator; and (4) formatting, if requested.

Step 3. Legal Review of Translation

Once the final translation is received from the translation provider, the Judicial Council

should conduct a legal review of the translation through a bilingual attorney, or similarly

qualified subject matter expert, to ensure that all legal concepts have been accurately

communicated and no meaning has been lost in the translation.

Step 4. Finalization of Translated Documents by the Judicial Council

If formatting of the translation was not part of the deliverable by the translation

provider, the Judicial Council’s Editing and Graphics Group should format and finalize

the documents for posting and distribution.

Step 5. Posting and Dissemination of Translated Documents

When a document is formally finalized, it will be made publicly available on the Judicial

Council’s website and/or on local court websites. It may also be directly provided to the

local courts, justice partners, and community-based organizations throughout the state,

depending on the type of document and its intended use.

Step 6. Monitoring of Existing Translations, Updates Needed, and Identification of

Additional Materials for Translation

The Translation Advisory Committee will track any needed updates to translated forms

and materials in a timely fashion. In addition to ensuring that all existing translations

are maintained and up to date, the Translation Advisory Committee will apply an

approved evaluation rubric to identify vital documents as needed and as translation

resources become available.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms

Bilingual or Multilingual Format–Formatting a translated document so that the English

and the foreign language text are provided together on one document. The non-English

translation is positioned directly under or after each English word, sentence or

paragraph, or side by side with the English content.

Local Court Forms–Forms created by a superior court specifically for use in that court,

when a Judicial Council mandatory form does not exist or a court’s procedures require

additional information not provided on the statewide form.

Mandatory Judicial Council Forms–Judicial Council forms that have been adopted for

mandatory statewide use, as opposed to optional forms, which, as their name implies,

are statewide forms that may be used by court users but are not required as the only

means for filing a particular pleading.

Monolingual Format–Developing the translated version using the same format, font

and size as the original English document (a “mirror image”).

Optional Judicial Council Forms–Judicial Council forms that have been approved for

optional statewide use, as opposed to mandatory forms. As their name implies, optional

forms may be used by court users but are not required as the only means for filing a

particular pleading.

INFO Court Forms–Judicial Council forms provided for informational purposes only.

They describe a particular process to the court user, usually applicable to a particular

court proceeding. Examples are FL-107-INFO, describing the overall process of a divorce

or legal separation in California, DV-500-INFO, describing domestic violence restraining

orders, and many more. They are usually designated by the suffix “INFO”.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Appendix D: Plain Language

Plain language is communication that the intended audience can understand the first

time they read or hear it. Plain language principles include:

 Text at the reading level of the

average user

 Useful headings

 Addressing the reader directly (e.g.,

“you”)

 Use of the active voice

 Short, simple sentences

 No excess words

 Concrete, familiar words

 Use of “must” to express

requirements; avoiding “shall”

 Consistent, accurate punctuation

 Short paragraphs and bullet lists

 Placing words carefully (avoiding

large gaps between the subject, verb

and object; putting exceptions last;

placing modifiers correctly)

 Avoiding foreign words, jargon,

acronyms, colloquialisms, idioms,

and abbreviations

 Saving longer or complex words for

when they are essential

 Presenting information intuitively

 Testing of draft document on

sample users

Content can be checked for readability to determine if the material is written at a level

that the intended audience can understand. Microsoft Word allows for an author to

check a document using its readability testing tools, including the Flesch and Flesch-

Kincaid tests. Accessing these tools may vary between different versions of Microsoft

Word, including the Mac versus PC versions. To use these tools, users can look for

preferences or options related to spelling and grammar, and make sure the feature

called “Show readability statistics” is enabled. After the grammar and spell check are

completed, a screen titled “Readability Statistics” will appear, giving the author

information regarding the accessibility of the material. Currently, web material aimed at

self-represented litigants in California on the Online Self-Help Center is aimed at a fifth-

grade reading level, to ensure that most audiences in the state can fully understand the

material.

For more information and tools for plain language writing, see The Plain Language Act of

2010, H.R. 946, 111

Cong. (2010). The Act is applicable to executive branch federal

agencies, but the Act and the www.plainlanguage.gov site provide information

regarding the usefulness and movement toward plain language documents.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

In the next two pages, see samples of Judicial Council form DV-110 before plain

language translation and after plain language translation, as prepared by Transcend.

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Judicial Council of California

July 2016

Appendix E: Translation Resources

ABA Standards for Language Access in Courts, American Bar Association (Feb. 2012).

Equal Access as it Relates to Interpretation and Translation Services, National

Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) (May 2006).

Guide to Translation of Legal Materials, National Center for State Courts (NCSC) (April

2011).

Language Access Planning and Technical Assistance Tools for Courts, U.S. DOJ (Feb.

2014).

PlainLanguage.Gov

Translation Getting it Right: A guide to buying translation, American Translators

Association (ATA) (2011).

Useful Resources and Links About Court and Legal Interpreting and Translation, with

links to several state and local translator associations, educational institutions, and

more.