FJM wrote:Rocky, i can confirm that this Lawyer not only speaks good english, even if she does have a bit of a "Geordie" accent, but also writes without spelling mistakes and even punctuation.
If a lawyer has spent the time to learn how to write good understandable English then it indicates to me that they are genuine people with more interests than just earning as much money as they can, IMHO. If a lawyer cannot write good English that would stand up legally, should he really be representing an English client?
Cheers B52, I didn't know the difference between a translator and interpreter but I do now.
Using an interpreter at something as important as the notary is a bit risky. What happens if they get it wrong. It's not their money on the line. You can't sue them or discredit them as you have no proof of how they interpreted the documents. The spoken word is worthless, that is why everything is put in writting. If everything has to be in writing, why use an interpreter? They use words which are worthless. It seems to make a mokery of using an interpreter.
If, in my customer service job, a Bulgarian came to me for my service and I gave him some documents to sign in English while someone was there to interpret what was written for him, I know this would not work. Yes, my back would be covered because I would have his signature and his money so why would I care if he signed something on a misunderstanding. It's his money which is now mine so I couldn't care less if he has been deceived. The interpreter couldn't care less either because he has been paid and there is nothing in writing to incriminate him. Everybody is happy, including my customer who is blisfully unaware that he might have been deceived.
If on the other hand this Bulgarian customer of mine empowers someone through a POA to gain my service then the person who has the POA is responsible if the Bugarian doesn't get what the POA states and will be liable. If my service is substandard and I do not give what the translated POA states then I am liable. My customer cannot be decieved because everything is in writing and every party involved is made responsible.
The point is, when everything is in writing then the customer is protected to the extent which he has protected himself in writing. If customer wants to rely on an interpreter he could be deceived.