Remote Interpreting for Solicitors: Benefits, Risks, and Best Practice

Remote interpreting has moved from pandemic workaround to standard practice. HMCTS runs hearings on the Court Cloud Video Platform (CVP), prisons offer Prison Video Link (PVL), the Home Office conducts interviews by video, and client conferences routinely happen on Teams or Zoom. Used well, remote interpreting is faster, cheaper and often better prepared than the in-person equivalent. Used carelessly, it introduces procedural risk. This article sets out both sides; for the HMCTS-specific platform detail, see Remote Interpreting under HMCTS CVP.

The benefits — and why they are real

• Cost. No travel time, no mileage, no hotel. For a one-hour solicitor conference, the difference between a remote booking and an interpreter travelling across the country is substantial — and for legally aided work, easier to justify on assessment.
• Availability. Same-day remote bookings are frequently possible. For rarer dialects — Yemeni and Sudanese Arabic among them — the qualified interpreter pool is small; remote instruction means the right interpreter is available regardless of geography.
• Continuity. The same named interpreter can cover the police station consultation, the conference with counsel, the PVL visit and the CVP hearing — preserving terminology and rapport across the life of the case.
• Preparation. Time not spent travelling is spent reading the bundle, preparing a glossary and confirming dialect. A prepared remote interpreter routinely outperforms an unprepared in-person one.

The risks — and how they actually arise

1. Audio quality is an accuracy issue, not an IT issue

Interpreting depends on hearing every word. Poor microphones, speakerphones in echoing rooms and participants talking over each other degrade accuracy directly. If the interpreter cannot hear, the record is compromised — and a professional interpreter will say so on the record rather than guess.

2. Confidentiality and privilege

Privileged consultations need a secure channel and a confirmed-private room at both ends. Ask who else is in the room, and use the platform's private breakout facility (or a separate call) for solicitor–client exchanges during a hearing.

3. Mode of interpreting

Most remote platforms only support one audio channel, which means consecutive interpreting: short segments, one speaker at a time. Advocates and judges who run remote hearings at in-person pace force the interpreter to summarise — exactly what should never happen. Build the extra time into the listing estimate.

4. Non-verbal information

Camera framing matters. The interpreter should be able to see the speaker's face. For vulnerable clients, trauma-affected witnesses or anyone with comprehension difficulties, consider whether remote is suitable at all — sometimes in-person remains the right call, and a candid interpreter will tell you so.

Platform notes: CVP, PVL, Teams and Zoom

CVP is the HMCTS standard for remote hearings; joining instructions come from the court, and interpreters attend as named participants. PVL bookings are made through the prison and save a half-day visit for a 45-minute appointment. Teams and Zoom remain the norm for client conferences and Home Office work. A remote-first interpreter works across all four daily and can advise on setup before the day.

The bottom line

Remote interpreting is not a discount substitute for in-person work — done properly, it is a different and often superior way of delivering the same professional standard, UK-wide, at lower cost. The variable is not the platform; it is the interpreter and the preparation.