Teams of speech-language pathologists, interpreters, and clients were asked to respond to a survey about the characteristics of an effective conference where the results of a speech-language assessment and recommendations were reported. The goals of the project were to describe practices followed by clinicians to ensure that their professional voice was conveyed effectively to the client despite a language barrier and to assess clients’ satisfaction with the information they received. Questions for the speech-language pathologists and the interpreters were similar and pertained to clarity, accuracy of the information conveyed, and issues of confidentiality, clients’ rights, and the dynamics of the conference (what to do if the client seeks advice directly from the interpreter, what to do if the client brings in a bilingual advocate, and what if the interpreter does not agree with what is said). The speech-language pathologists and the interpreters were also asked second largest group speaks Vietnamese (the percentage drops significantly to only 4%, approximately). Several Asian languages including Hmong, Cantonese, Cambodian, Korean, Laotian, Navajo, and Tagalog follow, with slightly more than 1% spoken by each group (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993). The 2000 census data on language use by adults will not be released until the summer of 2002. However, according to the 1990 census, as many as 20% of 31 million (or 6 million) immigrant adults reported not being fluent in English (Langdon & Cheng, 2002). Federal law under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) specifies that tests must be to provide descriptions of a “good“ and “bad” speech-language pathologist and interpreter, and to comment on their reactions to the process of interpretation. A follow-up study was conducted to validate the responses of the speech-language pathologists. Questions for the client included impressions about how the roles of the team members had been defined, the clarity and the accuracy of the information provided, the team’s ability to understand the client’s concerns, the confidentiality of the information shared, and the general level of satisfaction with the process. The article discusses the clinicians’ responses, compares them to known best practices, and makes suggestions for areas to emphasize in future training for teams of speech-language pathologists and interpreters. Ideas for future research are also outlined.