is the second volume belonging to the Translation and Interpreting Series, a collection of books designed with the purpose of publishing the latest research studies focused on new phenomena and practices related to different fields of translation and interpreting, within an international framework, and giving testimony of the multiple shapes and forms that both disciplines can take in the 21 st century.On this occasion, the volume is dedicated to legal texts from a professional and academic point of view, presenting several approaches on sworn, legal and court translation and interpreting.Moreover, the works included in this book emphasize the key role of interdisciplinarity and diversity in the context of legal translation and interpreting from a wide range of perspectives from several languages and cultures.Thus, authors address a great variety of standpoints covering interdisciplinarity, didactics, linguistics, terminology, corpora, sworn translation, legal translation and interpreting, and undertaking an array of legal texts about court interpreting, civil and criminal judgement, certificates, deontic systems, family law, etc.To begin with, Hunt-Gómez presents her work titled Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting classroom.The author emphasises the necessity to ensure appropriate training in court interpreting in Spain, in order to professionalise this activity, as there is still a lack of specific education and a standardised certification for interpreters in the country.Hunt-Gómez faces the controversy arisen when dealing with impoliteness in court teaching and training, as some teachers feel unconfident, reluctant or uncomfortable when swearing or expressing offensive and violent intentions in the classroom.However, the author reminds that accuracy is a paramount element in court interpreting, so interpreters should have the competences required to find the pragmatic equivalence.By means of a specific court interpreting didactic material, Hunt-Gómez explores the skills of interpreting students to find out if they are able to produce a pragmatic equivalent in court interpreting when offensive language, taboo words and insults are mentioned, as well as to determine if specific training may compensate the possible lack of linguistic, semantic or cultural knowledge.