12 Weeks Solo: Reflections and Realizations

Earlier this November, I reached 12 weeks since my unofficial start at going independent. I’ve been unsure about how to add a regular writing or blogging component to the ongoing discoveries associated with leaving the W-2 for the W-9(s), but I made sure to write down a small idea or thought each week so far. Here are some realizations from the first 12 weeks of going solo interpreting and translation.

Job cancellations can seem a racket, but they’re ultimately a protection.

In my line of work, when a job is cancelled 24-48 hours before it was scheduled for, I can bill for the cancellation and get a partial payment equal to the minimum of what the full job would have paid. Every agency and jurisdiction has slightly different rules on their website or in their contract, but they all mostly come to this.

Now, given the nature of the legal world, delays happen all the time. This leads to occasional situations where a job will pay $3X if it is held, but still pay $X if it is cancelled. So if enough big, multi-day jobs get cancelled, my monthly take-home may end up being thirty percent from cancellations. It’s not what I prefer, but it is nice to make something when you lose hours, or days, or work. Because…

The quick-paying clients are far and few between.

There is one client I have that pays the day I submit the invoice. They use Zelle. I have one more client that pays the same day I invoice. They also use Zelle. Zelle is a beautiful word.

My remaining clients do not pay the same day or the next day. They use direct deposit or mail checks, and those can arrive 10 or 15 or 30 or sometimes 60 days later. The lack of regularity in payments is why I waited until I had at least 6 and closer to 20 months of financial cushion before going solo. So when those cancellation payments come in, I’m just happy for the cash flow.

“Interpreters interpret.”

This idea, while simple, actually carries a good amount of legal importance. Let’s use Spanish for this example. In a legal setting (courtroom, deposition), Spanish interpreters only speak Spanish after someone (judge, attorney, etc.) has spoken to the person they are interpreting for in English, and they only speak English after the person they are interpreting for has spoken in Spanish. Most of the time, this is good enough, and the interpretation proves useful.

Other times, you run into trouble. In one instance, a person I was interpreting for told the judge they wanted me to read Greek text messages and translate them into English to be spoken into the record. The judge said no. “Interpreters interpret” means that I can only translate* what is spoken in Greek; they would have to read the text messages themselves, only then followed by my interpretation.

*Translate vs. interpret: You’ll see some language professionals make a big deal about the distinction between these two categories, even though it’s fair to say that it matters very little to most people. In short, translation refers to altering written words from one language to another, interpreting to spoken words. Most people use translation interchangeably, and it’s usually clear what they mean.

Still other times, I’ve had a person I’m interpreting for switch between English and the target language* indiscriminately. In those cases, as an interpreter you decide how much of their English you will repeat in English in your interpretation. The two extremes are simple; it’s the middle that’s muddled.

(EDIT: Re-wrote this note- thanks to reader feedback!) *Target language is the language the interpreter is interpreting the English proceedings into. For me, it’s Greek; for Spanish interpreters, it’s Spanish; and so on.

If the person I’m interpreting for is speaking only Greek, I interpret into English and all is good. If they’re speaking only in English – which many people who have been assigned an interpreter do – I remain silent and their answer is either taken into the record directly or they are instructed to repeat their answer in Greek, and all is good. However, if they answer in a mixture of English and Greek, and if they continue to do so despite previous instruction (which happens), then my job is to determine if can make an accurate interpretation of their testimony. Usually I think I can. Still, the mantra “interpreters interpret” is useful to remember in the heat of proceedings, when it can be nerve-racking enough just recalling the testimony, much less the rules of interpreting.

I’ll write up some more reflections on going solo in the next post. For now, happy Thanksgiving!