The cheapest interpreter is rarely the lowest cost. When dialect is wrong or qualification is thin, the price shows up later — as an adjourned hearing, a contaminated account, or a ground of appeal. Measured properly, the saving on the hourly rate is dwarfed by what a mismatch costs the matter.
In short
- A failed hearing costs the adjournment, the wasted attendances and the delay — not just the interpreter fee.
- Interpretation errors create false inconsistencies that damage credibility and feed appeals.
- Registration and correct dialect are risk controls, not luxuries.
The visible cost and the real one
The interpreter line on an invoice is the visible cost. The real cost is what happens when interpreting fails: a hearing that cannot proceed, an account that has to be retaken, or a finding built on a mistranslation that someone later has to unpick. Each of those carries court time, professional time and client consequence far beyond the rate.
Adjournments and wasted attendances
If an interpreter cannot cover the dialect, or is not cleared for the venue, the hearing may not be effective. The adjournment wastes everyone present — counsel, witnesses, the client — and pushes the matter back weeks. In funded work, an avoidable adjournment is also a difficult conversation about who bears the cost.
False inconsistencies and credibility
The subtler damage is to the evidence. When the same account is interpreted differently at different stages, the discrepancies look like the client changing their story. In asylum and criminal work, that apparent inconsistency goes directly to credibility — and it originated not with the client but with the interpreting. Once on the record, it is expensive to dislodge.
Appeals and challenges
Interpretation that can be shown to be unreliable becomes a ground of challenge. Re-opening a finding, commissioning a review of a recording, or arguing the point on appeal all cost more than instructing a registered, dialect-matched interpreter would have at the outset.