Jon Katz at the blawg formerly known as Underdog raises a very important problem in his post about non-English speakers defendants, regularly subject to police using Spanglish as if it was a substitute for meaningful communication.
Too many monolingual people seem to think that if they speak louder or repetitively that ultimately they will be understood by a person who does not speak the speaker’s language. Too many people think that if a person understands such phrases as “Do you speak English” or “Fire, fire” that this means the person speaks the tens of thousands of other words and phrases needed to have a sufficient command of the English language.
You betcha.
But it’s not just cops who engage in this tomfoolery. Lawyers do it too, and often because our non-English speaking clients refuse to admit that they don’t understand. One of the first questions I ask of a client is whether he speaks and understands English. The most frequent response is “si, yo hablo Ingles muy bien.” Yeah, right.
Our non-English speaking clients frequently suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They tell us they understand English. They don’t. We accept their representation that they understand English. We shouldn’t.
The ability to communicate accurately with clients, both to adequately inform them about their cases as well as obtain accurate information about their cases, is critical to our ability to provide effective assistance of counsel. If the client cannot speak English fluently, we cannot effectively provide assistance.
It is hardly unusual for clients to be able to communicate adequately in English for many purposes. Order food. Locate the bathroom. Pay the abogados retainer. Admire our tie. But communicating legal concepts is outside the ken of many native English speakers. You can bet that it’s not at the top of the list of phrases learned by non-English speakers.
It is the criminal defense lawyer’s responsibility to assure that the client comprehends our communications. Not merely kinda, sorta, but really, really. That’s why we have interpreters, particularly interpreters trained in communicating the specialized information, language and concepts involves in criminal proceedings.
As Jon points out, the wealth of faults in communications between police and defendant present issues that must be explored in the course of our representation. Let us not repeat those faults in our own communications.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s a bit in one of the Hornblower novels, where a bosun thinks that if you only speak very loudly, and add an o to the end of every word, if the fellow claims not to understand you, he’s being deceptive.
I’m not sure what you do with “hello,” but…
My personal favorite is when someone speaks in a loud, clear, overly-articulated voice to a blind person.
After doing some work as a Spanish for a Second Language instructor, I can strongly agree with your assessment, Scott. And, as an early Plain English advocate, I’m certain the issues arise frequently even when English is the client’s first language.
I had an aha! moment when I was at a training for Law Guardians many years ago, and the communications specialist reminded us that the words “party”, “motion” and “briefs” don’t mean the same thing to children as they do to lawyers. Nonetheless, a year later, after a half hour chat with a small boy over how much visitation he’d like to have with his dad, he asked “what’s visitation?” But, at least he asked.
Similarly, while at the FTC 30 years ago, I questioned a proposed regulation that would make hearing aid salesmen start each interaction at a person’s front door with an oral statement of their rights.
Also very true. Even in English, we tend to forget that we’re talking a different language and that normal people don’t use the words that we do. And as discussed before here, it is even more important for judges to bear in mind.
Or asks their companion questions on the blind person’s behalf. (I’ve seen waitpeople do that with people in wheelchairs, too.)