Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC15-1594

____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL 

ADMINISTRATION.

[December 8, 2016]

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to 

the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 

2(a), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

Previously in this case, and upon this Court’s request, the Court Interpreter 

Certification Board (Board) and the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee 

(Committee) filed a “time sensitive out-of-cycle joint report” proposing 

amendments to current rule 2.560 (Appointment of Interpreters for Non-EnglishSpeaking Persons) and the addition of new rule 2.565 (Retention of Spoken 

Language Court Interpreters for Non-English-Speaking and Limited-EnglishProficient Persons by Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants). We adopted the 
- 2 -

amendments and new rule as proposed. Additionally, because the amendments had 

not been published for comment prior to adoption, interested persons were 

provided sixty days in which to file comments with the Court. Two comments 

were received—one from Sandra M. Lonergan, Trial Court Administrator for the 

Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Eleventh Circuit), and the other from several individual 

Florida Certified Court Interpreters. The Eleventh Circuit’s comment raised 

several concerns, including the application of the requirements of rule 2.560(e) to 

the appointment of court-employed interpreters. The individual certified court 

interpreters’ comment requested clarification of several terms used in newly 

adopted rule 2.565 and requested clarification regarding the use of the declaration 

required by that rule. The Committee and Board filed a response to the comments. 

After consideration of the comments and the Board and Committee’s

response, the Court directed the Eleventh Circuit Trial Court Administrator to file a 

supplemental comment addressing the following: 

(1) the number of interpreters currently employed by the Eleventh 

Circuit and whether such court-employed interpreters are certified, 

language skilled, provisionally approved, or registered; (2) the rate at 

which court-employed interpreters in the Eleventh Circuit are 

obtaining certified status within one year of employment, as required 

by Florida Rule for Certification and Regulation of Spoken 

Language Court Interpreters 14.205(c), explaining the reasons courtemployed interpreters may not be meeting the requirement; and (3) 

the quality of interpretation services provided by court-employed 

interpreters in the Eleventh Circuit based on information solicited 

from the users of such services, such as judges, assistant public 
- 3 -

defenders, assistant state attorneys, private attorneys, court reporters, 

and litigants. 

The Board and Committee were directed to file a response to the supplemental 

comment addressing the Eleventh Circuit’s suggestion in its initial comment that 

registered court-employed interpreters should be exempted from the requirements 

of rule 2.560(e) and to provide details: 

(1) pertaining to the nature of the accommodations previously 

considered and rejected by the Board and Committee that would have 

potentially minimized obstacles to routine court appointment of courtemployed interpreters and (2) pertaining to the history and empirical 

data considered by the Board and Committee indicating that many 

court-employed interpreters do not yet possess the minimum skills 

required to competently provide services to limited-English-proficient 

persons and to the courts. 

The Board and Committee were also directed to propose amendments to Florida 

Rule of Judicial Administration 2.560 exempting registered court-employed 

interpreters from the requirements of subdivisions (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(5) of that 

rule for the Court’s consideration should the Court decide to adopt such 

amendments. 

AMENDMENTS

Upon further consideration of the initial and supplemental comments and 

responses, we hereby adopt minor additional amendments to rule 2.560(e)(3) and 

(e)(5), as proposed by the Board and Committee in response to specific comments 

from the Eleventh Circuit. Additionally, we adopt new subdivision (f) of rule 
- 4 -

2.565 as proposed by the Board and Committee in response to the comments of the 

individual certified interpreters. As requested by the Board and Committee, we

also refer back to the Board and Committee for further consideration the issue of 

the utility of requiring non-English speaking or limited-English proficient persons 

to make on-the-record objections and waivers pertaining to interpreters appointed 

to assist such individuals. The Board and Committee should consider the ability of 

a non-English speaking or limited-English-proficient person to effectively make a 

knowing and intelligent objection or waiver and consider other error preserving 

mechanisms, including the requirement of audio recordings for the purpose of 

preserving judicial review of the accuracy of the interpretation.

Given the Board and Committee’s continued strong objection to an 

exemption from the requirements of rule 2.560(e) for court-employed interpreters 

and the information supporting this objection provided in the Board and 

Committee’s supplemental response, we decline to adopt an exemption in this 

regard. We also decline the Eleventh Circuit’s request that the deadline in 

Interpreter Rule 14.205(c) for court-employed interpreters to obtain certification be 

extended from one year to two. As for the Eleventh Circuit’s request for more 

frequent oral examination administrations and a waiver of the registration fee for 

court-employed interpreters, those matters are not addressed in the court rules and 

thus, are outside the scope of the Court’s rulemaking authority and this case.
- 5 -

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration are hereby 

amended as shown in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by 

underscoring. Deleted language is shown in struck-through type. The 

amendments shall become effective immediately upon release of this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 

and PERRY, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

Judge Steven Scott Stephens, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, 

Tampa, Florida; Amy Singer Borman, Past Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration 

Committee, West Palm Beach, Florida; Judge J. Kevin Abdoney, Chair of the 

Court Interpreter Certification Board; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, 

and Krys Godwin, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; James C. 

Goodlett, and Lisa Bell, Staff Liaisons, Office of the State Courts Administrator, 

Tallahassee, Florida, 

for Petitioner

Sandra M. Lonergan, Trial Court Administrator, Linda Kelly Kearson, General 

Counsel, and Patricia Lynn Gladson, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the 

General Counsel, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami, Florida; Lilia 

Banrevy, Casselberry, Florida; Rafael Barreras, Groveland, Florida; Mara 

Abraham Cawthorn, Winter Garden, Florida; Agustin de la Mora, Winter Park, 

Florida; Dalia Romero, Orlando, Florida; Ines Soto, Orlando, Florida; Indira Vega, 

Orlando, Florida; and Claudia E. Villalba, Deland, Florida,

Responding with Comments
APPENDIX

RULE 2.560. APPOINTMENT OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE COURT 

INTERPRETERS FOR NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING AND 

LIMITED-ENGLISH-PROFICIENT PERSONS

(a) –(d) [no change]

(e) Qualifications of Interpreter.

(1) Appointment of Interpreters When Certified or Other Duly 

Qualified Interpreters Are Available. Whenever possible, a certified or other 

duly qualified interpreter, as defined in the Rules for Certification and Regulation 

of Spoken Language Court Interpreters, shall be appointed. Preference shall be 

given to appointment of certified and language skilled interpreters, then to persons 

holding a provisionally approved designation.

(2) Appointment of Interpreters When Certified or Other Duly 

Qualified Interpreters Are Unavailable. If, after diligent search, a certified, 

language skilled, or provisionally approved interpreter is not available, the 

presiding judge, magistrate, or hearing officer, finding good cause, may appoint an 

interpreter who is otherwise registered with the Office of the State Courts 

Administrator in accordance with the Rules for Certification and Regulation of 

Spoken Language Court Interpreters. No appointment shall be made under this 

subdivision unless the presiding judge, magistrate, or hearing officer makes a 

determination, on the record, the proposed interpreter is competent to interpret in 

the proceedings.

(3) Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances. If after diligent 

search no interpreter qualifying under subdivision (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this rule is 

available at the time interpreter services are needed, the presiding judge, 

magistrate, or hearing officer, finding good cause exists for the appointment of an 

interpreter not qualifying under subdivision (e)(1) or (e)(2), such as the prevention 

of burdensome delay, the request or consent of the non-English-speaking or 

limited-English-proficient person, or other unusual circumstance, may appoint an 

interpreter who is neithernot certified, language skilled, provisionally approved, 

noror otherwise registered with the Office of the State Courts Administrator. No 

appointment, including appointment of interpreters available via remote 

technology, shall be made under this subdivision unless the presiding judge, 

magistrate, or hearing officer finds the proposed interpreter is competent to 

interpret in the proceedings. This finding must be made on the record based, not 
- 7 -

only on the unavailability of an interpreter otherwise qualified in a particular 

language, but also on specific exigent circumstances given the demands of the case 

and the interpreter’s sworn assertion he or she is able, either in direct or 

relay/intermediary interpretation, to communicate effectively in the languages in 

which interpreter services are required. An appointment under this subdivision 

shall excuse an interpreter so appointed from the registration requirements under 

the Rules for Certification and Regulation of Spoken Language Court Interpreters, 

but only for the delivery of the specific services for which the interpreter is 

appointed.

(4) On-the-Record Objections or Waivers in Criminal and 

Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings. In any criminal or juvenile delinquency 

proceeding in which the interpreter is not appointed under subdivision (e)(1) of this 

rule, the court shall advise the accused, on the record, that the proposed interpreter 

is not certified, language skilled, or provisionally approved pursuant to the Rules 

for Certification and Regulation of Spoken Language Court Interpreters. The 

accused’s objection to the appointment of a proposed interpreter, or the accused’s 

waiver of the appointment of a certified, language skilled, or provisionally 

approved interpreter, shall also be on the record.

(5) Additional on-the-Record Findings, Objections, and 

Waivers Required at Subsequent Proceedings. The appointment of an 

interpreter who is not certified, language skilled, or provisionally approved in 

accordance with the Rules for Certification and Regulation of Spoken Language 

Court Interpreters shall be limited to a specific proceeding and shall not be 

extended to subsequent proceedings in a case without additional findings of good 

cause and qualification as required by subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this rule, 

and additional compliance with the procedures for on-the-record objections or 

waivers provided for in subdivision (e)(4) of this rule.

(f) – (g) [no change]
- 8 -

RULE 2.565. RETENTION OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE COURT 

INTERPRETERS FOR NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING AND 

LIMITED-ENGLISH-PROFICIENT PERSONS BY 

ATTORNEYS OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS

(a) – (b) [no change]

(c) Retention in Exceptional Circumstances. If, after diligent search, no 

interpreter qualifying under subdivision (a) or (b) of this rule is available, an 

attorney or self-represented litigant, for good cause, may retain an interpreter who 

is neithernot certified, language skilled, provisionally approved, noror otherwise 

registered with the Office of the State Courts Administrator.

(d) – (e) [no change]

(f) Time for Preparation, Submission, Filing, and Service. Verified 

written declarations required by this rule shall be prepared, submitted to the Office 

of State Courts Administrator, filed with the Clerk of Court, when required, and 

served on all parties in advance of the proceedings to which they are relevant. 

When compliance with this subdivision is impossible or impracticable due to the 

existence of emergency or other extraordinary circumstances, the attorney or selfrepresented litigant shall:

(1) comply with the preparation, submission, filing, and service 

requirements of this rule as soon as is practicable following the conclusion of the 

proceeding; and

(2) include in the verified written declaration a brief statement 

describing the emergency or other extraordinary circumstances justifying postproceeding compliance.