If the attorney’s client doesn’t speak the Dutch language an interpreter for the hearing is mandatory

This disciplinary complaint is against a Dutch attorney by a client who had engaged her to assist her in her divorce (¶ 2.2). She complains that the attorney’s service was very bad. One aspect of her poor service was the way she handled a language problem at crucial moments for her client.

A divorce hearing was scheduled for March 15 at 1:15 P.M. but it wasn’t until the day prior to the hearing that the attorney requested an interpreter for her client (¶ 2.4). The day of the hearing, at 11:21 A.M. —shortly before the hearing— the attorney informed her client that she hadn’t been able to find her an interpreter for her particular Arabic language and that she could try to find an interpreter for another Arabic language variation. Her client rapidly replied at 11:41 A.M. stating it would be better for her to receive assistance from an interpreter and that an interpreter for the Arabic language would be good (¶ 2.5). It turns out that the attorney failed to arrange an interpreter for her and this failure is part of the complaint.

In her defense the attorney claims (¶ 4.2) that she believed that her client didn’t need an interpreter as their communication had always been in Dutch and her client was doing an academic study at the time. Because the client requested an interpreter, the attorney tried to book one for her, but there wasn’t any available. The attorney believes that it isn’t her fault that she wasn’t able to find any interpreter for her.

The Board summarizes the complaint’s language problem as follows (¶ 5.2). The attorney failed to arrange an interpreter for her client’s hearing, even though her client needed an interpreter. The Board finds that right before the hearing the attorney (or her secretary) tried to find an interpreter but without success. The Board holds that the attorney was responsible for checking with (enough) time in advance whether her client needed an interpreter, given that the Dutch language was not her client’s mother tongue. The attorney cannot decide in advance for her client that her client won’t need an interpreter.

The attorney should’ve consulted her client with enough time and if she wanted assistance of an interpreter —as here— she should have been able to arrange an interpreter for her and actually done so. In this respect, the attorney failed to exercise due care. For this reason, the Board finds for the complainant.

Thank you very much for visiting. Thank you for your donations, for believing in Plus Ultra and for sharing this with anyone who may find this useful. Because of you, we can continue to help the community at large with free multilingual support and in language, law and tourism and create valuable related content, such as articles and videos. Again, we appreciate your support and hope to see you soon again.

© Plus Ultra Publishing & Legal Translations. All rights reserved.