The Interpreter Rule You Are Responsible For: A Bar Ethics Opinion Puts the Duty on the Lawyer
Most conversations about interpreter ethics are about the interpreter. A 2026 advisory opinion from the Washington State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics is about you. It reads the Rules of Professional Conduct to say that when a client cannot fully communicate with their lawyer, closing that gap is the lawyer’s ethical duty, and it sets conditions on the two shortcuts firms reach for most often: a bilingual family member, and a translation app.
What does the opinion actually say?
That the duty is yours. In its own words, “lawyers have an ethical duty to make reasonable use of qualified interpreters, translators, or other translation services to bridge any language gaps with clients who are unable to fully communicate with the lawyer due to communication barriers.”
Advisory Opinion 202601, Language Access Issues for Lawyers reads that duty out of RPC 1.1 (competence), 1.2(a) (scope and client objectives), 1.4(a) and (b) (communication), 1.6(a) (confidentiality), 1.16(a)(1) (declining or terminating representation), 2.1 (advisor), and 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance).
The reasoning is simple enough that it travels: a lawyer who cannot clearly communicate with a client cannot learn the client’s objectives, discuss options, obtain informed consent, or competently represent them. Everything downstream of communication depends on communication working.
Is this binding on me if I do not practice in Washington?
No, and that matters. This is a Washington advisory opinion interpreting Washington’s RPCs.
But those RPCs track the ABA Model Rules that most states have adopted in substance, and the underlying duties, competence, communication, confidentiality, and supervision of nonlawyer assistants, are not unique to Washington. Treat it as a well-reasoned reading of rules your state very likely has in some form, and check your own jurisdiction’s authority before relying on it.
Can a client’s family member interpret?
Sometimes, but the opinion puts the vetting on you and flags a privilege risk most firms do not price in.
It acknowledges the practical pull: family or friends may put the client at ease and let everyone avoid the cost of a professional. Then it adds the conditions. Lawyers “must determine whether the personal associate is sufficiently proficient in both languages to adequately communicate with the client” and “must ensure that use of a nonprofessional interpreter or translator does not invalidate attorney client privilege protections.”
On privilege it is more specific: “the use of a professional interpreter will generally not impact privilege. However, the use of other individuals may do so.” It also says the lawyer should advise the client about possible loss of privilege when a third party who is not hired or employed by the lawyer interprets or translates documents.
Read those together and the calculus changes. The family member is not free. The cost has moved from your invoice to your privilege log.
What about using an AI translation tool?
Permitted, with four conditions and informed consent. This is the part worth reading twice.
If a lawyer uses machine interpretation or translation in place of a human, the opinion says the lawyer must:
- determine the reliability and confidentiality of the technology
- decide whether human review of the output is needed
- disclose the use of the technology
- bear the risks of error associated with it
and obtain the client’s informed consent.
It also assigns an affirmative research duty: it is the lawyer’s job “to research and be aware of the differences of machine interpretation and translation accuracy by language and dialect.” Accuracy is not uniform across languages, and the opinion expects you to know that before relying on a tool.
The line it draws is about stakes. Scheduling an appointment through a translation app may be fine. Summarizing client notes after a meeting, or preparing declarations, is where it says human review may be required.
“Bear the risks of error” is the clause to sit with. It does not say the vendor bears them.
Does this change what I should be doing on intake?
It changes when the conversation happens, and who pays for the gap if it goes wrong.
The opinion suggests laying out anticipated interpreter costs at the time of engagement so the client is informed, and making reimbursement procedures clear if the firm advances them. That is a conversation at engagement, not a surprise on a bill.
RPC 5.3 adds a supervision layer. Lawyers with managerial authority are expected to make reasonable efforts to ensure that nonlawyers working with the firm behave compatibly with the lawyer’s professional obligations. An interpreter engaged for a privileged client meeting is a nonlawyer assisting the representation. Their confidentiality posture is your problem, which is a strong argument for engaging interpreters through a firm that carries agency-level confidentiality agreements rather than sourcing ad hoc.
What should firms actually do with this?
- Assume the duty is yours. Do not leave sourcing to the client and do not treat “the client brought someone” as the end of the analysis.
- Vet the person, not the language. Proficiency in both languages, in the register the matter requires.
- Price the privilege risk before accepting a family interpreter. Advise the client about possible loss of privilege when a third party interprets.
- If you use a translation tool, disclose it and get consent. And decide in advance which tasks require human review.
- Know the accuracy varies by language and dialect. The opinion makes that your homework.
- Put interpreter cost in the engagement conversation, with reimbursement terms if you advance it.
- Confirm confidentiality agreements at the agency level, before the meeting, not on an assignment sheet after the fact.
Bottom line
The interpreter question is usually treated as procurement, something a paralegal handles the week of the deposition. This opinion frames it as professional responsibility, running through competence, communication, confidentiality, and supervision. That is a different category of exposure, and it is one where “the client’s cousin offered” and “we ran it through an app” are answers you would rather not give.
Kaplan Interpreting Services provides court-certified and professionally qualified interpreters and certified legal translation for law firms nationwide, under agency-level confidentiality agreements, with the interpreter’s credential named on every confirmation. Related reading: what belongs on a certificate of accuracy and verifying interpreter credentials before a proceeding.
Contact us with the language, matter type, and setting, and we will confirm a credentialed interpreter and the confidentiality paperwork before the meeting.
Not legal advice. Unauthorized practice of law rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct vary by state. Consult your own jurisdiction’s authority.
CEO & Founder
Born in Dallas, Texas, Alexandra grew up surrounded by Spanish, English, Arabic, and Italian. After moving to Venezuela, Spanish became her primary language. She holds a Master's in Healthcare Administration from Washington University in St. Louis and is a California court certified and medical interpreter.
She founded Kaplan Interpreting Services after seeing an industry that treated interpreters as interchangeable and clients as ticket numbers. She built a protocol-driven operation where every interpreter is hand-selected and credentialed for the specific setting, every client has a dedicated point of contact, and risk management is built into every assignment.
Her career reached a historic milestone when she interpreted the conversation between President-elect Biden and Pope Francis. That assignment, along with engagements for Nike and the Summit of the Americas, set the standard for every client engagement that followed.
"The same protocols that protected that historic conversation now protect every assignment we handle."