Interpreter preparation program (IPP) instructors often ask those of us who work providing legal interpreting to give talks and training to other individuals who would like to work in that arena one day. For some of us, this request fills us with unease. On the one hand, we remember sitting around with colleagues and having feverish discussions about why IPP students should not be talked to about legal work. “They aren’t going to do it for many years.” “This time can be spent focusing on foundational interpreting skills.” “They should focus on those areas they will interpret: educational, medical, vocational rehabilitation.” “They are going to think they can do it.” “Any discussion about legal interpreting for IPP students should aim to scare them into never ever doing this kind of work.” All are comments we have either said or heard and typically agreed with over the years. However, we also remember how we wanted to learn about legal interpreting when we were training as an inter preter. We often wondered how it was different from other types of interpreting work. We remember thinking that it would be interest ing to do even if we knew we didn’t want to do it immediately. What is our job, as experienced practitioners, educators, schol ars, and future colleagues, if not to share what we have learned? So, rather than attempting to scare the students or reminding them that they are nowhere near ready to take on this kind of work, some of us have decided to share what it is we know and let them decide when they are ready to enter this area of interpreting. The authors have taken this approach. We have decided to empower them to make informed decisions. As part of our discussions here with educators of would-be legal interpreters, we aim to encourage a dialogue on systematic analysis. Like the sociology of interpreting adopted by Brunson (2011), we discuss issues beyond the language work. Focusing on which sign expresses which word provides an incomplete picture of the work required to interpret. A systemic analysis requires that we begin to see, and teach others to see, our work is embedded in larger appa ratuses (for further discussion, see Stone & Brunson, 2020). During our analysis, we hope to unpack the challenges and differences in le gal interpreting. Access to various resources will aid in our ability to do our jobs and identify who is necessary and who is not (e.g., DIs, teams). Of course, we also want to explore how we, as practitioners, can perpetuate certain practices or challenge them. WHAT DO WE CALL LEGAL? We typically start our presentations with a question: “How well do you know the legal system in your country?” To this, we usually get, “I have had a speeding ticket.” Or “I went through a divorce.” We then follow up with a question about the characteristics of our legal system. Of course, people mention rights, judges, and jails. This is a time to get a feel for how the students think about the legal system. It never fails; it is always more limited than what the legal system actually is. In states where there is interpreter licensure in place, such as Arizona, attempting to discuss the broad range of events that could be legal can be complicated. What we, as academics, educators, and practitioners, consider to be legal are not the same as those enshrined in statute. As we know, legal is far more than what oc curs in the courtroom (see Bancroft et al., 2013; Benmaman, 1995; Hale, 1995; Marszalenko, 2014; Mathers, 2018; Pöchhacker, 1997; Walker & Shaw, 2011). However, in Arizona, where both of us have lived, “legal” is limited to court, attorney/client meetings, and police interactions (A.R.S. § 12-242). In this way, Arizona has done what most studies have done—limiting legal interpreting to a few mo ments in the legal process. Indeed, Monteoliva-Garcia (2018) found in her review of literature that most publications between 2008 and 2017 focused on courtroom interpreting. Regardless of this limitation by state statute, educators should at tempt to expand what it is that students may think of as legal. We use examples of contracts such as modern-day marriage. To be sure legal scholars still debate whether marriage is a status or a contract (Halley, 2010; Scott & Scott, 1998).
