GENERAL RULE 9

RULE AMENDMENT COVER SHEET SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO GR 11.3

1.       Proponent Organization: BJA Remote Proceedings Work Group

2.       Spokesperson & Contact Info:

Judge Jim Rogers, Co-Chair BJA Remote Proceedings Work Group – Superior Court Level Email: Jim.Rogers@kingcounty.gov

Phone: 206-477-1597

3.       Purpose of Suggested Rule Amendment

The purpose of this proposed amendment is to allow remote interpretation. This rule includes basic safeguards. The remote Groups support this change.

It should be noted that the Washington State Interpreter and Language Access Commission (ILAC) does not support any change at this time. ILAC’s position is as follows: the ILAC recently proposed, and this Court adopted, changes to 11.3 and the ILAC believes these changes are sufficient because the rule already allows for remote interpretation (with appropriate safeguards); ILAC has not heard concerns from any stakeholders about the recently enacted rule; and additional training and studies would be warranted before amending it again. Regardless, the Task Force and ILAC have agreed to partner on these important issues for guidance to courts.

This Task Force defers to the Court as to whether to consider this proposal in light of the opposition, as long as it is understood that we have learned in our meetings and through our data that remote interpretation is absolutely essential for almost all jurisdictions, whether by telephone or video. Many jurisdictions simply cannot afford in person interpreters, or do not have ready access to live in-person interpreters for certain languages, for parties or witnesses who appear live in their courts. Justice is delayed or dismissed in some cases.

Also, the pandemic led to a seismic shift in what interpreters agree to do. Many simply will not come to court any longer. It appears that many interpreters can afford to turn down in person work, through their ability to find remote work across wide geographical areas. ILAC shares this concern and has made addressing the shortage of interpreters a high priority.

The differences between the existing rule (that was rewritten by the ILAC and passed by this Court) and the proposed rule here can be easily summarized. The difference is when a court

must find good cause to allow remote interpretation. In the existing rule, good cause is required to allow remote interpretation for evidentiary hearings of all types, criminal and civil. In the proposed rule, good cause is required to allow remote interpretation for criminal matters only, whether non-evidentiary or evidentiary. The proposed rule reflects the current reality that many protection order hearings and many, many other civil matters are conducted at least partially remotely without a finding of good cause.

Both rules are silent on a very common situation where a witness or party does not appear live in the courtroom but “remotes in” from home or work. Where is the interpreter required to be, for the purposes of appearing “live?” In the remote party’s home? Or the courtroom? The reality is that in such a case, the interpreter always will be remote in some sense, either because the interpreter will not be at the location of the witness (which almost never happens) or because the interpreter will not be in court. One assumes that courts will routinely find good cause in such a situation and move forward. During the pandemic, such situations were common and handled easily.

4.       Is Expedited Consideration Requested?

Expedited consideration is essential. The Court should seriously consider passing amended rules permitting remote proceedings before the Supreme Court’s Emergency Order is lifted. Use of remote technology in superior courts is now widespread. For some jurisdictions, it has become essential to maintain access to justice. President's Corner > The Rural Attorney Shortage is Turning Into a Crisis in Washington State - Washington State Bar News (wabarnews.org) Members of our Group in rural areas noted that remote technology assists them by allowing out of town counsel to appear.

5.       Is a Public Hearing Recommended? No