Tag: #νομικημετάφραση #legaltranslation

In a world increasingly flooded with AI-generated content, have we forgotten how to read critically?

A thought-provoking piece I read recently entitled “Promptism and the Forgotten Art of Source Criticism in the Age of AI” raises exactly that point.

It made me think about legal translation.

And how what it says about source criticism applies so powerfully to what we do as legal translators.

You’ve probably seen it too.

Legal texts fed through AI tools that come out sounding smooth, plausible, grammatically correct.

But as we all know (or should know ) legal translation isn’t about sounding smooth.

It’s about being right and precise.

The article talks about the illusion of fluency; how something that reads well can still be deeply flawed.

And in legal settings, flawed translations mean flawed understanding.

And flawed understanding can lead to real-world consequences.

When working on legal texts, especially ones involving rights, obligations, or procedural safeguards, “close enough” is not close enough.

This is where source criticism (the habit of actually going back to check, verify, and compare with the authoritative original) becomes a professional duty.

Not just a nice-to-have.

If you’ve ever run an AI-generated translation through its paces, you’ll know it rarely holds up under scrutiny.

Subtle distinctions missed.

References mistranslated.

Wording altered in a way that changes legal effect.

It doesn’t matter how confident or elegant the output appears. If it isn’t anchored in legal reality, it’s unusable.

And more than unusable, it’s potentially harmful.

That’s why I keep championing the role of expert human translators.

Because we legal translators don’t just “translate”. We verify, interrogate, and challenge the text.

We bring legal knowledge to the task.

We bring linguistic precision.

We do the checking so our clients don’t have to.

The message of that Promptism article is clear: don’t lose the habit of critical reading.

Don’t stop questioning what you’re shown.

In legal translation, that habit can and does make all the difference.

If you need Greek to English legal translations that go beyond the surface and actually hold up in practice, get in touch with us at #Jurtrans. Because close enough simply isn’t good enough.

 

ensuring accuracy in legal translation - critical reading: evaluating text for flaws / source verification: checking against original sources / legal knowledge application - applying legal expertise / linguistic precision - ensuring accurate wording. Jurtrans - Greek-English legal translations

LegalTranslation LegalAccuracy AIandLaw DueDiligence LegalTech GreekLaw

νομική μετάφραση

Can you base a legal argument on something you can’t fully understand?

Can you rely on something you know may be inaccurate? Can a court decide a case not fully understanding the evidence or knowing it may be inaccurate?

That’s the quiet conundrum courts are beginning to face with machine translation.

As legal systems increasingly encounter foreign-language evidence, and as machine translation tools creep into everyday use, we’re starting to see these tools referenced in English judgments. The attitudes of the courts are revealing, and at times, contradictory.

I reviewed recent case law* and one overarching pattern emerges: courts are pragmatic. They’ll accept a machine translation when nothing else is available. But they are also cautious, sometimes sceptical, yet rarely confident in what the technology produces.

In Apparel Fzco v Iqbal, Armeniakou v Thomson, and Eli Lilly v Genentech, the courts accepted machine-translated documents without much critique. These cases read as if the translation simply passed under the radar. A quiet admission into evidence without comment or concern. Not an endorsement, but certainly not a red flag either.

Contrast that with Joyvio Group v Quiroga Moreno and Abbott v Dexcom. Here, the courts acknowledged that MT has some utility but were careful to limit how much weight they gave it. Machine translation might help orient the reader. But when it comes to deciding rights, obligations, or liabilities, it’s background noise. Certainly not the main soundtrack.

And then there are cases like Secretary of State v LJ Fairburn & Son Ltd and El-Tawil v Comptroller General of Patents, where the courts do raise eyebrows.

“Somewhat erratic”

“Odd English”

“Not easy to follow”

“Doubtful translation

These aren’t throwaway remarks.

They are judicial shorthand for “this isn’t reliable”, yet the judgments often stop there.

The concern is voiced, the translation doubted, but rarely interrogated in depth.

What emerges is a telling judicial inconsistency. Some judges treat MT as good enough. Others barely trust it to parse a sentence. And across the board, there is little examination of how translations are produced, who produces them, and how meaning might shift in the process.

This mirrors the findings Juliette Scott and I outlined in “Translation in Libel Cases: Reputations at Stake!”**.

Judicial approaches to translation vary not just across jurisdictions, but within them. Some courts scrutinise every nuance. Others assume equivalence where none exists.

The role of the translator is often invisible. The status of machine-generated text, undefined.

That matters.

Because legal texts are not just linguistic artefacts. They carry implications; they have legal effects. Meaning isn’t surface-level.

Machine systems don’t understand legal context. They don’t parse ambiguity. They don’t recognise subtext or intent.

They pattern-match.

And when the outcome of a case hinges on meaning, that’s not enough.

If judges are flagging the limitations of MT, lawyers should take note.

So what does this mean for legal practice?

Don’t walk into court with a rough idea of what the document says. Don’t submit a translation just because it’s fast, or free. Don’t assume the judge will catch and correct an error in a language they don’t speak.

Because in law, words aren’t just words. They’re tools. And sometimes, they’re weapons.

I think the overall message that emerges from these cases can be summarised as machine translation is merely a tool that is sometimes useful.

It might help orient the reader. It might support a rough understanding. But for anything beyond that, particularly where legal rights hang in the balance, it is no substitute for a trained legal translator.

Or to put it more bluntly: if your client’s liberty, liability, or livelihood is on the line, do you really want the judge in your case relying on a “somewhat erratic” translation?

No one reads a legal document as closely as a legal translator. Machines don’t come close.

If you’re litigating cross-border matters, or dealing with foreign judgments, pleadings, or scientific evidence, don’t settle for a “rough idea.” Insist on a version that is clear, legally accurate, and fit for purpose. Get the right translation. Get the right translator.

If you need a legal document in the Greek< >English combination feel free to reach out to us at JURTRANS TRANSLATIONS LTD.

#LegalTranslation #MachineTranslation #AccessToJustice #RuleOfLaw

*To identify the case I used “machine translation” as a search term in an online database of English case law.

** https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/cl/article/download/31723/29787/73271

νομική μετάφραση

Contact


If you would like further information about the specialised services we provide, or need a quote for a translation please feel free to contact us.

Name
Email
Message

Thank you for your message! We will get back to you as soon as possible.
There has been an eror in the form. Please validate the required fields.
© Copyright 2014 JurTrans