Title: In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.430, 2.535, 2.560, and 2.565
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-1137
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1137 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL 
ADMINISTRATION 2.430, 2.535, 2.560, AND 2.565. 
 
[May 31, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Court has for consideration out-of-cycle1 amendments to the Florida 
Rules of Judicial Administration proposed by the Rules of Judicial Administration 
Committee (Committee) and the Court Interpreter Certification Board (Board).2  
After considering the comments filed with the Court concerning the proposals that 
would require the making and retention of audio recordings of both the English and 
non-English portions of criminal and juvenile delinquency proceedings when a 
                                          
 
 
1.  See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e).   
 
2.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
 
- 2 - 
lesser-qualified3 spoken language court interpreter is appointed (recording 
requirement), the Committee and Board withdrew those proposals and revised 
other proposals.  We adopt all the remaining and revised proposals, except the 
proposed deletion of the rule 2.560(e) advisement/objection/waiver provisions that 
apply in criminal or juvenile delinquency proceedings. 
BACKGROUND 
 
The majority of the rule amendments proposed in the joint out-of-cycle 
report are in response to a request made by this Court in In re Amendments to Fla. 
Rules of Judicial Administration, 206 So. 3d 1, 2 (Fla. 2016) (referring specified 
issues back to Committee and Board, at their request, for further consideration).  In 
the Court’s 2016 opinion amending rule 2.560 (Appointment of Spoken Language 
Court Interpreters for Non-English-Speaking and Limited-English-Proficient 
Persons) and adopting rule 2.565 (Retention of Spoken Language Court 
Interpreters for Non-English-Speaking and Limited-English-Proficient Persons by 
Attorneys or Self-Represented Litigants), the Court asked the Committee and the 
Board to consider several issues.  The Committee and the Board were to consider 
                                          
 
 
3.  “Lesser-qualified” interpreter, as used in connection with the withdrawn 
recording requirement proposals, means an interpreter appointed under Florida 
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.560(e)(2) who has been registered with the 
Office of the State Courts Administrator for less than two years, or a nonregistered 
interpreter appointed under rule 2.560(e)(3).  
 
 
- 3 - 
“the utility of requiring non-English speaking or limited-English proficient persons 
to make on-the-record objections and waivers pertaining to [spoken language 
court] interpreters appointed to assist such individuals,” and “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 recording for the purpose of 
preserving judicial review of the accuracy of the interpretation.”  See id.  The 
recording requirement proposals are among the rule amendments the Committee 
and the Board proposed in response to that referral.  According to the report, 
several of the other proposals included in the report are not related to the referral 
issues.  The Executive Committee of the Florida Bar unanimously approved all the 
proposed rule amendments.     
After considering comments filed by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial 
Circuit and the Trial Court Budget Commission (Commission), which pointed out 
significant fiscal and operational impacts that likely would result from the 
implementation of the recording requirement proposals, the Committee and the 
Board withdrew those proposals and revised other unrelated proposals.  In their 
joint response to the comments, the Committee and the Board also agree with the 
Commission’s suggestion that the Court establish a limited pilot program before 
the Court considers whether to adopt a statewide recording requirement.  The 
 
 
- 4 - 
Committee and the Board also ask the Court to adopt the remaining and revised 
rule amendments that are unrelated to the withdrawn proposals.  Those 
amendments are to rules 2.560(a) (Criminal or Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings), 
2.560(e)(4) (On-the-Record Objections or Waivers in Criminal and Juvenile 
Delinquency Proceedings), 2.560(e)(5) (Additional on-the-Record Findings, 
Objections, and Waivers Required at Subsequent Proceedings), and 2.565(a) 
(Retention of Interpreters when Certified or Other Duly Qualified Interpreters Are 
Available).   
AMENDMENTS 
We adopt the proposed amendments to rules 2.560(a) (Criminal or Juvenile 
Delinquency Proceedings) and 2.565(a) (Retention of Interpreters when Certified 
or Other Duly Qualified Interpreters Are Available).  However, at this time, we 
decline to delete the rule 2.560(e) advisement/objection/waiver provisions that 
apply in criminal and juvenile delinquency proceedings when a court intends to 
appoint an interpreter who is not certified, language skilled, or provisionally 
approved, as defined in the Rules for Certification and Regulation of Spoken 
Language Court Interpreters. 
The amendments to rule 2.560(a) extend the spoken language interpreter 
appointment requirement in criminal and juvenile delinquency proceedings to 
parents and legal guardians of accused juveniles and to victims and alleged 
 
 
- 5 - 
victims.  As amended, subdivision (a) of rule 2.560 requires an interpreter to be 
appointed in any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which the 
accused, the parent or legal guardian of the accused juvenile, the victim, or the 
alleged victim cannot understand or has limited understanding of English, or 
cannot express himself or herself in English sufficiently to be understood.   
The Committee and the Board proposed the amendments to rule 2.565(a) to 
clarify that the rule does not require an attorney or self-represented litigant to retain 
an interpreter to assist the litigant or a witness when the court is not required to 
appoint one.  The rule, as amended, requires that when an attorney or self-
represented litigant does retain an interpreter, whenever possible, the attorney or 
litigant must retain a certified, language skilled, or provisionally approved 
interpreter.   
At this time, we decline to delete the rule 2.560(e) 
advisement/objection/waiver provisions.  Those provisions were originally 
proposed by the Supreme Court Interpreter Committee and adopted by this Court 
as part of the overall interpreter-preference scheme for criminal and juvenile 
delinquency proceedings.  See In re Petition to Adopt Fla. Rules for Certification 
& Regulation of Court Interpreters and Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.073, 933 So. 2d 
504, 506, 518 (Fla. 2006) (adopting rule 2.073 (now rule 2.560) and including the 
subdivision (e) advisement/objection/waiver provisions to be followed when the 
 
 
- 6 - 
court intends to appoint an interpreter who is not certified or duly qualified in a 
criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding).  Those provisions (1) emphasize to 
the court that a subdivision (e)(1) interpreter (now a certified, language skilled, or 
provisionally approved interpreter) must be appointed in a criminal or juvenile 
delinquency proceeding, when one is available, and (2) give the accused notice 
when the court intends to appoint a less qualified interpreter, so the accused can 
raise any objection to the appointment before the appointing court.  According to 
the joint report, the deletion of the advisement/objection/waiver provisions was 
originally proposed in anticipation of the adoption of the “protective net” of 
requiring the making and retention of audio recordings to preserve interpreter error 
in criminal and juvenile delinquency proceedings.  Because this Court is not 
putting that “protective net” in place at this time, we defer consideration of 
whether the subdivision (e) advisement/objection/waiver provisions should remain 
in the rule until such time as a proposed statewide recording requirement is before 
this Court.  
PILOT PROGRAM 
The Commission in its comment and the Committee and the Board in their 
joint response recommend that before the Court considers requiring the making 
and retention of audio recordings when a lesser-qualified interpreter is appointed in 
a criminal or juvenile dependency proceeding, the Court should establish a limited 
 
 
- 7 - 
pilot program to assess the fiscal and operational impacts of such a requirement 
and the best practices for statewide implementation.  In light of the significant 
fiscal and operational impacts identified in the comments, before the Court moves 
forward with the suggested pilot program, the Chief Justice, in consultation with 
the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA), will appoint a special 
workgroup to advise the Court on the need for and the feasibility of such a pilot 
program and to suggest program parameters and participants.  If, after considering 
the advisory workgroup’s recommendations, the Court approves going forward 
with a pilot program, the workgroup, with the support of OSCA, will oversee the 
program.  And, after that pilot program ends, the workgroup will make 
recommendations to the Court as to whether a recording requirement to preserve 
interpreter error should be implemented statewide and the best practices for a 
statewide requirement.  If the Court ultimately decides it should require statewide 
compliance, the Court will direct the Rules Committee and the Board to file a new 
out-of-cycle rules report proposing the necessary rule amendments. 
In conclusion, we amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration as 
reflected in the appendix to this opinion.  New language is indicated by 
underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type.  The amendments 
shall become effective July 1, 2018, at 12:01 a.m.  We also take this opportunity to 
thank the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee and the Court Interpreter 
 
 
- 8 - 
Certification Board for their continued work on these important rules.  And we 
thank the Trial Court Budget Commission and Chief Judge Frederick J. Lauten for 
their valuable input on the recording requirement proposals.   
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and 
LAWSON, 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 
 
Judson Lee Cohen, Chair, Miami Lakes, Florida, and Honorable Steven Scott 
Stephens, Past Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Tampa, Florida; 
Honorable J. Kevin Abdoney, Chair, Court Interpreter Certification Board, Bartow, 
Florida; Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Staff Liaison, The 
Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
 
for Petitioners 
 
Honorable Frederick J. Lauten, Chief Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orlando, 
Florida; Honorable Margaret O. Steinbeck, Chair, Trial Court Budget Commission, 
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Fort Myers, Florida, and Eric Maclure, Staff Liaison, 
Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
APPENDIX 
RULE 2.560. 
APPOINTMENT OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE COURT 
INTERPRETERS FOR NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING AND 
LIMITED-ENGLISH-PROFICIENT-PERSONS 
(a) 
Criminal or Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings. In any criminal or  
juvenile delinquency proceeding in which a non-English-speaking or limited-
English-proficient person is the accused, the parent or legal guardian of the 
accused juvenile, the victim, or the alleged victim cannot understand or has limited 
understanding of English, or cannot express himself or herself in English 
sufficiently to be understood, an interpreter for the non-English-speaking or 
limited-English-proficient person shall be appointed. In any criminal or juvenile 
delinquency proceeding in which a non-English-speaking or limited-English-
proficient person is a victim, an interpreter shall be appointed unless the court finds 
that the victim does not require the services of a court-appointed interpreter. 
(b) – (g) 
[No Change] 
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) 
Retention of Interpreters when Certified or Other Duly Qualified 
Interpreters Are Available. In the absence of a requirement that a spoken 
language interpreter be appointed by the Court under rule 2.560, wWhen an 
attorney or self-represented litigant retains the services of an interpreter are 
required to assist a non-English-speaking or limited-English-proficient litigant or 
witness in a court proceeding or court-related proceeding as defined in the Rules 
for Certification and Regulation of Spoken Language Court Interpreters, anthe 
attorney or self-represented litigant shall, whenever possible, retain a certified, 
language skilled or provisionally approved interpreter, as defined in the Rules for 
Certification and Regulation of Spoken Language Court Interpreters. Preference 
shall be given to retention of certified and language skilled interpreters, then to 
persons holding a provisionally approved designation. 
(b) – (f) 
[No Change]