Remote interpreting over Teams, Zoom, CVP and Prison Video Link has become standard for much legal work — and for good reason. But it is not the right mode for everything. Choosing deliberately at the point of instruction saves cost on the routine matters and protects accuracy on the difficult ones.
In short
- Remote suits conferences, short hearings and interviews — no travel cost or delay.
- The room still matters for long, emotionally heavy or multi-party hearings.
- Decide the mode at booking so you don't pay travel for video-suitable work.
Where remote is the better choice
For solicitor conferences, bail applications, case management, asylum interviews and most short hearings, remote interpreting is faster to arrange, cheaper (no travel charged) and just as accurate when the audio is good. It also widens the pool: a dialect specialist anywhere in the country can cover a hearing without a day lost to travel.
Where in-person still earns its place
Some settings benefit from physical presence: long trials, hearings with heavy documentary handling, vulnerable witnesses where rapport matters, and multi-party situations where remote audio struggles. The judgment is about the human dynamics of the room, not technology — and it is worth making consciously rather than by default.
The cost trap to avoid
The common waste is booking in-person — and paying travel and mileage — for work video would have handled. If a matter is straightforward and the platform is reliable, remote is the default. Reserve in-person for where the room genuinely changes the outcome.