Iowa Ct. R. ch. 48, Canon 9

An interpreter must immediately report the interpreter’s conviction of a felony or any lesser crime

of dishonesty or moral turpitude to the Office of Professional Regulation of the Iowa Supreme Court

(OPR). The interpreter must also immediately report to the OPR any public discipline entered against

the interpreter in any jurisdiction. The failure to submit such a report may be an independent ground

for discipline. An interpreter who observes another interpreter commit a serious violation of the Code

of Conduct should submit a written complaint to the OPR.

Comment to Canon 9.

Interpreters must disclose to the OPR the types of criminal convictions and disciplinary actions that

potentially constitute “disqualifying misconduct” pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 47.2(1)(c)(3). An

interpreter who observes another interpreter commit a serious violation of the Code of Conduct should

file a written complaint with the OPR using the form provided by that office. Discretion should be

exercised by the interpreter who observed the alleged unethical conduct when determining whether the

alleged violation was sufficiently substantial to warrant discipline. Minor or infrequent interpreting

errors might be technical violations of Canon 1, but they probably would not warrant discipline. Some

examples of serious ethical violations by court interpreters include: frequent failures to interpret

accurately or completely in court; falsification of a claim for interpreter services; publicly discussing

confidential attorney-client communications; or clearly providing legal advice to an LEP person in

court.

If an interpreter doubts whether another interpreter’s conduct rises to the level of a serious ethical

violation, the interpreter should consider sharing her or his concerns with the other interpreter.

Collaboration among interpreters working together to improve their skills is encouraged.