A document signer appears before a notary for a jurat. The signer is deaf and communicates via American Sign Language (ASL) with an interpreter who is a close friend. The interpreter translates the oath, and the signer signs the document. What is a critical requirement the notary must ensure is met before proceeding?

An oath administered through an interpreter raises one central risk: the notary is relying entirely on a third party to convey both what the notary said and what the signer answered, and the notary cannot verify either. That reliance is only acceptable if the interpreter is disinterested and competent, which is why the interpreter must not be a party to the transaction, must not be named in the document, and must not stand to benefit from it. A close personal relationship is not by itself disqualifying, but a stake in the document is. Competence matters equally, since an inaccurate rendering of the oath means no oath was administered at all — hence the expectation that the interpreter be a certified or registered interpreter rather than whoever happened to come along. The notary should also record the interpreter's involvement in the journal. What the notary need not do is speak the language personally, and the presence of a language barrier is not a reason to refuse a jurat outright.

The notary relies on the interpreter to convey both the oath and the signer's response, so the interpreter must be competent — certified or registered — and disinterested, neither a party to nor named in the document.

Where an interpreter is used, the interpreter must be competent and disinterested — not a party to the transaction and not named in the document — because the notary cannot independently verify the rendering of the oath or the response.

Competent and Disinterested. The interpreter is your ears, so they cannot have a stake in what you hear.

Record the interpreter's name and involvement in the journal. It is the only evidence later that the oath was properly conveyed.

• •Using any bilingual person available as an interpreter
• •Overlooking that the interpreter is named in the document
• •Refusing the act outright because of a language barrier