Sign Language Interpreters: Who Pays?
Publication year | 2004 |
Pages | 29 |
Citation | Vol. 33 No. 4 Pg. 29 |
2004, April, Pg. 29. Sign Language Interpreters: Who Pays?
Vol. 33, No. 4, Pg. 29
The Colorado Lawyer
April 2004
Vol. 33, No. 4 [Page 29]
April 2004
Vol. 33, No. 4 [Page 29]
Departments
Access to Justice
Sign Language Interpreters: Who Pays
Access to Justice
Sign Language Interpreters: Who Pays
Readers interested in contributing an article on legal
services, pro bono, and access to justice topics should
contact Jo Ann Viola Salazar at jvsalazar@cobar.org
by Eric Maxfield
Eric Maxfield is Attorney and Coordinator of the Protection
and Advocacy for Individual Rights Program at The Legal
Center for People with Disabilities and Older People - (303)
722-0300 or (800) 288-1376
In enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"),1 Congress found:
Individuals with disabilities continually encounter various
forms of discrimination, including outright intentional
exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural,
transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective
rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing
facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification
standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser
services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other
opportunities; . . .2 (Emphasis added.)
Title III of the ADA establishes a right to equal access to
public accommodations. Both Title III and U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") regulations interpreting the ADA
specifically include the offices of lawyers in the definition
of public accommodation.3 In addition, Colorado's Rules
of Professional Conduct ("Colo.RPC" or
"Colorado Rules") contain ethical rules that are
implicated when representing (or considering representing) a
client who is deaf or hearing impaired.4
Therefore, attorneys would do well to consider effective
communication as both an important civil right and as a
necessary component of competent practice. The following
questions are posed from the perspective of an attorney in
private practice, licensed in Colorado.5 Through this
question and answer format, the article addresses the
statutory and ethical duties of attorneys to clients who are
deaf or hearing impaired to ensure effective communication
through the provision of sign language interpreters.6 As
such, this article spells out statutory obligations
concerning an individual's right to participate fully and
equally in the stream of commerce and in our legal system.
Persons who are deaf often and aptly characterize the right
to effective communication in our legal system as the right
to full, rather than second-class, citizenship.7
Question 1
"Do I have to provide a sign language interpreter during
the initial meeting with a potential client who is deaf, even
if I ultimately decline to represent the potential
client?"
Answer: "Effective communication" is the
responsibility of an attorney to any person who seeks his or
her services.8 Just as a ramp will allow a person who uses a
wheelchair for mobility to access a building, effective
communication through the provision of a sign language
interpreter ensures that an individual who is deaf will enjoy
access to services offered to the public. Moreover, under the
ADA, it is not adequate to have a uniform policy of writing a
declination/rejection letter, expecting that this will
suffice for an individual who communicates by sign language.
This is because Title III requires that a public
accommodation provide equal access (distinguished from a
uniform policy that may disproportionately and negatively
impact individuals with disabilities) to all benefits of a
service, such that the access is equal to that afforded to
other individuals.9
Fluency in sign language does not indicate fluency in English
or literacy. Many individuals who are deaf use American Sign
Language ("ASL") ". . . as their primary
language and means of communication."10 Although derived
from English, ASL is a distinct language, "with a
separate historical tradition, and separate morphological and
syntactic principles of organization."11 Again, under
ADA requirements for effective communication, it is the
lawyer's duty to assess whether the recipient of his or
her declination/rejection letter can understand what is
written.
Once the lawyer has determined that the would-be client
requires an interpreter for effective communication, the
attorney must provide one, unless an undue burden would
result (see the answer to Question 2 for a discussion of
"undue burden").12 It is normally acceptable to set
an appointment through the use of written notes (if the
person understands that communication).13 The DOJ (analyzing
28 C.F.R. § 36.303 regarding "auxiliary aids")
directs: "The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary
to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance
with the length and complexity of the communication
involved."14
Furthermore, the DOJ emphasizes that the ADA does not limit
the requirements for the provision of interpreter services to
the most extreme circumstances.15 Instead, the DOJ indicates
that a wide range of communications involving health, legal
matters, and finance may be sufficiently lengthy or complex
to require the provision of interpreter services.16 It is an
effective practice for all lawyers to contact interpreters
well in advance of receiving contact by an individual who is
deaf so as to learn appropriate retainer procedures.
Question 2
"Assume I agree to represent an individual who is deaf
and who uses a sign language interpreter for effective
communication. What if it becomes apparent that the case is
more complex than expected and will incur many times the cost
of interpreting than was originally or reasonably
expected?"
Answer: Over time, as different protected classes come to
more full participation in our society, lawyers accept the
costs of participation as a natural and necessary part of
"overhead" expenses. Not coincidentally, this is
the perspective on costs formalized in the ADA.17 The costs
of participation are not specific to an individual, but
general to us all as part of the cost of doing business. In
determining whether an "undue burden" exists, it is
inappropriate to compare the cost of an interpreter with the
payment received from a client. The appropriate comparison is
between the cost of the interpreter and the resources or
overhead of the organization.18
As long as the cost of the interpreter is not unduly
burdensome, attorneys must provide for effective
communication.19 Even if the cost becomes unduly burdensome
(for more on "undue burden," see the answers to
Questions 5 and 7 below), there are other considerations that
may limit an attorney's ability to decline to provide an
interpreter (for example, the Colorado Rules noted in the
answer to Question 10 below - Colo.RPC 1.14, 1.3, and 1.4).
Question 3
"May a family member or member of the law firm use sign
language for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial