Interpreter — No Shared Language with Signer

No California statute requires a notary and signer to speak the same language — but the California Notary Public Handbook strongly cautions against using an interpreter to bridge a communication gap during a notarial act. The fundamental concern is that the notary cannot independently verify what is being communicated between the interpreter and the signer.

During an acknowledgment, the notary must confirm that the signer personally acknowledges they signed the document freely and voluntarily. If that exchange occurs through an interpreter, the notary has no independent way to confirm the signer's actual words or intent. During a jurat, the notary must personally administer the oath — a verbal act that must be understood and affirmatively responded to by the signer. An intermediary interpreter introduces an unverifiable layer.

The recommended practice is for the notary to decline and refer the signer to a notary who speaks the signer's language, rather than proceed through an intermediary.

Exam Tip: No statute flatly prohibits the use of interpreters. Exam questions on this topic are about best practice and recommended action. The model answer is: decline and refer. Any answer suggesting the notary should simply proceed with a willing interpreter is considered incorrect for exam purposes.