Bindinglaw

OH · rules

Ohio Sup.R. 9.53

When Telephonic Interpretation Should Not be Used

activein force · 2025-11-13 – presentact-effective-date

A court should not use telephonic interpretation in a case or court function if any of the following

apply:

(A) A Supreme Court certified foreign language interpreter, provisionally qualified

foreign language interpreter, or language-skilled foreign language interpreter is

reasonably available to serve on-site;

(B) The interpretation is necessary for a proceeding that is expected to last longer than

forty-five minutes, provided the interpretation may exceed forty-five minutes if the

communication is clear, the proceeding is simple and routine, and the rights of the

party are not compromised;

(C) The interpretation is necessary for a proceeding that involves witness testimony or

introduces complex evidence;

(D) The limited English proficient party or witness is a child, is elderly, is an

unsophisticated user of interpreter services, has profound speech or language

problems, or is or is alleged to be mentally disabled or mentally ill;

(E) It is determined that using telephonic interpretation would negatively impact access

for any reason.

History

Effective Date: July 1, 2014 Amended: November 13, 2025 Commentary (July 1, 2026) Appendix J, Standard 2 was renumbered to Rule 9.53 as part of the 2026 restructuring of the Rules of Superintendence.

Provenance

Source
supremecourt.ohio.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-14
Edition
2026-09-14
Content hash
5bc5eaf91eb49da27bf35c40108718ba35104e6e6dcbb95a64c196aaecb6d1e6
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
Ohio Sup.R. 9.53 — When Telephonic Interpretation Sho… · binding.law