Title: In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC15-1594
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 2016

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-English-
Speaking Persons) and the addition of new rule 2.565 (Retention of Spoken 
Language Court Interpreters for Non-English-Speaking and Limited-English-
Proficient 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 court-
employed 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 court-
employed 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 self-
represented 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 post-
proceeding compliance.