Client service

The client who needs an interpreter, and the questions nobody asks in time

A firm finds out that a client cannot conduct a meeting in the local language when the meeting starts. The interpreter is then arranged in a hurry, by someone who has done it before and remembers roughly how, or a family member interprets and the firm quietly accepts a risk it would not accept if it were written down. The whole of this is avoidable by asking early, and asking early is something an assistant does well.

Ask in the first exchange, not at the first meeting

One question, asked when the enquiry arrives, in the language the enquiry arrived in: is the client comfortable conducting the matter in this language, or would they prefer an interpreter. Asked then, there is time. Asked at the appointment, there is a rearranged appointment. The assistant is in an unusually good position to ask, because it has already detected the language the person chose to write in.

Writing in a language is not the same as instructing in it

Someone can write a clear enquiry in a second language and still be unable to follow a conference about limitation periods or read a witness statement. Treating the language of the enquiry as proof of fluency is the mistake that produces a client who nods through a meeting and signs something they did not follow. The question has to be asked, not inferred.

A relative is not an interpreter, and the reasons are practical

Family members summarise, soften, omit the embarrassing part, and occasionally have an interest in the outcome. In a legal matter any of those is a problem, and in a family matter the last one is a serious one. A firm should decide its position on this before a client offers, and the assistant should state that position plainly rather than leave it to the room.

Say who pays, because that is the unspoken question

Clients do not ask whether interpretation costs them money; they avoid mentioning that they need it. Stating the firm's position in the same breath as the offer removes the reason for hiding the need, and the cost of one interpreter is almost always less than the cost of a matter conducted on a misunderstanding.

Frequently asked questions

Can an AI assistant act as the interpreter?
No. It can conduct the initial enquiry in the client's language, which is genuinely useful, and that is not the same as interpreting a conference or translating a document for evidential use. Both of those need a person who can be identified and held to a standard.
When should a firm ask about language needs?
In the first exchange, before an appointment exists. Asked then, an interpreter can be arranged in the ordinary way; asked at the meeting, the meeting is rearranged. It costs one question and it is the cheapest friction a firm can remove.
Is it enough that the client wrote to us in our language?
No, and assuming so is the common error. Composing an enquiry with time and a dictionary is a different task from following a live conversation about procedure. Ask the question explicitly rather than inferring fluency from the fact that a message arrived.
Can a family member interpret?
That is the firm's decision to make in advance rather than in the meeting room. Relatives summarise and soften, sometimes have an interest in the matter, and in family cases that interest can be direct. Whatever the firm decides, the assistant should state it before a client offers.
Which languages does the assistant itself handle?
English, Hebrew and Russian, detected from the message. That covers the first conversation; it does not cover the matter, and the page is about not confusing the two.

Get in touch

Leave your details and we will reply. You do not need a sales call to get an answer.