MCR 1.111 Amendment: New Interpreter Classifications and Prohibition on Criminal Case Reimbursement (Effective January 1, 2026)
Overview
The Michigan Supreme Court has amended MCR 1.111, effective January 1, 2026, to restructure the classification system for foreign language interpreters, prohibit courts from ordering reimbursement for interpretation costs in criminal cases, and add a new definition for registered interpreter firms.
Key Changes to Interpreter Classifications
The amendment substantially revises the definitions of “certified foreign language interpreter” and “qualified foreign language interpreter,” creating clearer pathways for individuals and entities providing interpretation services.
Under the prior rule, a “certified foreign language interpreter” needed to pass the state test, meet state court administrator requirements, and register with SCAO. The amended rule removes the lettered list structure and adds that such interpreters “provide foreign language interpreter services independently or on behalf of a registered interpreter firm.”
This change acknowledges that many interpreters work through agencies rather than solely as independent contractors.
Restructured “Qualified Interpreter” Definition
The most significant change affects the “qualified foreign language interpreter” classification. The previous rule had a single definition with requirements including passing the consecutive or simultaneous portion of the exam “within the two calendar years preceding their registration application” and being “actively engaged in becoming certified by continuing to test on each portion of the oral examination in each calendar year.”
The amended rule creates three distinct pathways for qualification:
Pathway (a): Independent interpreters who have registered with SCAO, passed the consecutive portion of a foreign language interpreter test administered by SCAO or similar approved test (if testing exists for the language), are actively engaged in becoming certified, meet state court administrator requirements, and have been determined competent by the court after voir dire.
Notably, this pathway removes the strict “two calendar years preceding their registration application” window found in the prior rule, though it retains the requirement of being actively engaged in becoming certified.
Pathway (b): In-person agency interpreters who work for entities providing in-person interpretation services. Both the entity and the person must register with SCAO, the person must meet state court administrator requirements, and the person must be determined competent after voir dire.
Pathway (c): Remote telecommunication interpreters who work for entities providing interpretation services by telecommunication equipment. The entity must register with SCAO and meet state court administrator requirements, and the person must be determined competent after voir dire.
Prohibition on Criminal Case Reimbursement
MCR 1.111(F)(5) previously allowed courts to order financially able parties to reimburse interpretation costs without exception. The amendment adds a clear prohibition:
“Reimbursement is prohibited in criminal cases.”
This change removes any ambiguity about whether courts can shift interpretation costs to criminal defendants, even those with financial means.
New Definition: Registered Interpreter Firm
The amendment adds a new subsection (A)(7) defining “registered interpreter firm” as:
“an entity that employs or contracts with certified or qualified foreign language interpreters to provide foreign language interpretation services and that is registered with the State Court Administrative Office as required by MCR 8.127(C)(2).”
This formal recognition of interpreter agencies reflects the growing use of third-party services in Michigan courts.
Additional Changes
The rule updates MCR 1.111(G), revising the oath or affirmation administered to interpreters. The amended oath now includes “and not divulge confidential communications” before “so help you God.”
Subrule (C) has been amended to clarify waiver procedures. When a person waives their right to an interpreter, the court may use an interpreter to facilitate acceptance of that waiver without complying with the full appointment requirements of subrule (F), and the interpreter may participate remotely for this limited purpose.
Practical Impact
Attorneys should be aware that the pathways to interpreter qualification have expanded, particularly for those working through registered agencies. Courts will have access to a broader pool of interpreters, especially for languages where formal testing may not exist or where qualified individuals work primarily through agencies.
In criminal cases, prosecutors and defense counsel should no longer expect reimbursement orders for interpretation costs, regardless of a defendant’s financial status. Courts must absorb these costs as part of ensuring access to justice.
The amended rule appears in the Michigan Court Rules, published annually by Michigan Legal Publishing and available at michlp.com.