Tag: #AI

The words “It does work! This is feasible!” appeared in a New Zealand legal disciplinary decision concerning a lawyer accused of misleading her client about litigation strategy. The Legal Complaints Review Officer referred to them when examining the advice the lawyer had given. He ultimately found that the client had been misled and made findings of unsatisfactory conduct against the lawyer.

There is something particularly interesting about those words, though. They were not originally written in English. They appeared in a translation of chat messages that the client said had been produced using ChatGPT. The Review Officer knew this. He expressly recorded it in his decision. But how did he establish that the English accurately reflected what the lawyer had written in the original language?

That is the question I find most interesting about VA v JL [2025] NZLCRO 123.

A dispute about what the lawyer said

The case arose from a complaint about the handling of an employment and commercial dispute. The client maintained that her lawyer had advised her that High Court proceedings could be used to stop or disrupt proceedings before the Employment Relations Authority. An important part of the evidence consisted of chat messages exchanged between the client and the lawyer on 23 July 2021. Both parties produced records of the exchange, but the records differed. The client’s version contained messages in a language anonymised in the decision as Language F, accompanied by English translations she said ChatGPT had produced. The lawyer supplied a shorter version, with what the Review Officer believed were her own translations. Crucially, the client’s version included substantive advice that did not appear in the lawyer’s record. The lawyer denied sending the relevant message.

Which record was more complete?

At paragraph [112], the Review Officer explained why he preferred the client’s record. He considered her records otherwise meticulous, thought deletion of messages more likely than fabrication, and noted that some messages in the lawyer’s version appeared to be replies to missing communications. On the balance of probabilities, he found the client’s record more complete. But that finding did not establish that its English translation was accurate.

Two different evidential questions

For me, this is the central problem with the way the translated evidence was handled. The Review Officer had two questions to consider. The first was which party had supplied the more complete account of the correspondence. The second was what the original-language messages actually meant. Those are not the same question. It is entirely possible for a chat record to be authentic and complete, yet for its English translation to be inaccurate. A translation might omit a qualification, introduce a degree of certainty absent from the original, or convey the general sense while altering an important distinction.

In this case, the Review Officer offered reasons for preferring one record over the other. But the published decision does not explain how he established that the ChatGPT-generated English accurately represented the underlying messages. There is no identified independent translation, no discussion of linguistic verification and no indication that the Review Officer was himself able to understand Language F. Perhaps the translation had been checked. Perhaps there was some other basis for treating it as reliable. The decision does not tell us.

There is also a more subtle difficulty with the reasoning in paragraph [112]. One reason the Review Officer gave for preferring the client’s record was that some of the messages were not what the client would have wanted to hear. But how could he assess what the messages would have meant to the client without first establishing what they actually said? That assessment appears to depend, at least in part, on the meaning conveyed by the English translation. In other words, the translated content was being used to help assess the reliability of the record, without an explanation of how the translation itself had been verified.

I find that an uncomfortable evidential gap.

Why the precise wording mattered

This was not simply a case where an AI translation was included among the documents and then largely ignored. At paragraph [208], the Review Officer expressly returned to the July correspondence. He attributed to the lawyer the statements “Yes, it will work” and “It does work! This is feasible!” He considered those statements when assessing whether the lawyer had allowed her client to believe that commencing High Court proceedings would achieve a particular procedural result. At paragraph [209], he included the July exchange among the evidence concerning the advice the client had received.

The precise meaning of those words matters.

There is a difference between telling a client that a particular course of action is legally possible and assuring the client that it will achieve the desired outcome. There may also be important distinctions between expressing confidence, identifying a possibility and giving a qualified opinion about litigation strategy. Those distinctions can be conveyed differently in different languages. They can also be altered in translation. I am not suggesting that ChatGPT necessarily mistranslated the lawyer’s message. We have no basis for concluding that it did. But equally, the English wording cannot establish its own accuracy. The Review Officer did acknowledge that the disputed message included a warning about the costs and stress of pursuing proceedings. He did not treat it as an unqualified recommendation to litigate. Nevertheless, he relied on its translated content when assessing the advice given.

If the meaning of a disputed communication contributes to a finding about a lawyer’s professional conduct, surely the reliability of the translation deserves some attention.

The Review Officer recognised translation difficulties elsewhere

There is another aspect of the decision I find revealing. At paragraph [106], the Review Officer expressly acknowledged that he did not have English translations of certain earlier messages from the client. He therefore discussed the lawyer’s replies, which were in English. At paragraph [114], dealing with a separate instruction, he described an expression as an inexact translation and interpreted the client’s instructions in their wider context. So translation difficulties were not entirely absent from his reasoning. Yet when it came to the disputed ChatGPT-translated exchange, there is no corresponding explanation of how the accuracy of the English wording was established. The distinction is important. Recognising that a translation exists, or recognising that another translation may be inexact, is not the same as verifying the meaning of the original-language evidence.

Does this call the disciplinary outcome into question? There is an important qualification to this criticism. The Review Officer did not rely exclusively on the ChatGPT-translated messages. His findings were based on a substantial body of evidence, including written legal advice, the conduct of the proceedings and a later translated conversation supplied by the lawyer herself. It would therefore be wrong to suggest that the entire disciplinary outcome depended on the accuracy of one ChatGPT translation. We cannot know whether an independently verified translation would have affected any of the findings. Nor does the decision establish that the ChatGPT translation was inaccurate.

My concern is narrower, but I think it is important. The Review Officer expressly relied on statements appearing in a translation when deciding what advice a lawyer had given. Yet his published reasons do not explain how the accuracy of that translation was established. That is a problem with the transparency of the evidential reasoning, irrespective of whether the ultimate findings were justified by other evidence.

Who checks the evidence when the decision-maker cannot read the original?

In my recent discussion of AA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, I examined a case in which a judge noticed an obvious indication of ChatGPT use in a witness letter that the solicitors had apparently overlooked. That case raised questions about lawyers’ responsibility for checking AI-assisted evidence before submitting it to a court. VA v JL raises a different question. Here, the decision-maker was expressly aware that ChatGPT had been used to translate the evidence. The problem was not detecting AI involvement. It was establishing the reliability of the translated material before relying on its meaning.

Of course, courts and other legal decision-makers routinely deal with evidence written in languages they do not understand. They must be able to rely on translations. I am not suggesting that every translated document requires an independent expert assessment, or that the mere involvement of ChatGPT automatically renders a translation unreliable. But where the content of a communication is disputed, the parties offer different records, and the meaning attributed to particular words contributes to findings of professional misconduct, the method by which that meaning is established deserves scrutiny.

The mere fact that a translation reads fluently in English does not establish that it accurately communicates the source. Nor does preferring one party’s documentary record establish the accuracy of that party’s translation. In AA, the question was why the lawyers failed to notice what the judge noticed. In VA v JL, the question is what the Review Officer did with the knowledge that he was relying on an AI-generated translation.

If a decision-maker relies on translated words to determine what a lawyer said, shouldn’t the decision explain how the meaning of those words was verified? That seems to me a reasonable question to ask when translated evidence becomes part of the basis for a finding of professional misconduct.

 

#LegalTranslation #AIandLaw #Evidence #LegalTech #ProfessionalResponsibility

The judge spotted ChatGPT. Why didn’t the lawyers?

Imagine receiving a witness letter in support of your client’s case. It appears to confirm facts on which you intend to rely. The English reads reasonably well. The document is added to the evidence bundle and filed with the court. There is just one problem. The last sentence offers to turn the letter into a formal affidavit, add notarisation language or make the wording more neutral. That is not what you would normally expect to find at the end of a witness’s account of events. It reads remarkably like an invitation from a chatbot to continue the conversation. Would you have noticed it?

In AA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKFTT PA747122024 (IAC), the judge did. The solicitors who filed the letter apparently had not.

The case raises questions about the use of AI translation in legal proceedings. But for me, its most interesting aspect is not a demonstrated failure of machine translation. It is the responsibility of lawyers for checking the provenance, preparation and reliability of the documents they place before a court. And there is an interesting tension in the judgment between the judge’s criticism of the solicitors and the way the Tribunal dealt with the use of AI translation itself.

A witness letter with an unexpected ending

The case concerned an Egyptian national appealing against the refusal of his asylum claim. He maintained that he faced persecution because of his political activities and claimed association with the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the evidence was a letter from a witness identified as YR, who said he had known the appellant in Egypt and had participated in political activities with him. At the hearing, First-tier Tribunal Judge CJ Williams asked how the witness’s letter had been prepared. The witness initially explained that he had written it with someone’s assistance and that his daughter had translated it into English. But the judge had noticed something peculiar at the end of the letter: a sentence offering to adapt the document into a formal affidavit, insert notarisation language or use more neutral wording. That prompted the judge to ask whether ChatGPT or another AI system had been used. YR explained that he had written the letter in Arabic, used ChatGPT to translate it into English and then asked his daughter to compare the English version with the Arabic original to check that the meaning was the same.

There is a small but interesting distinction between those accounts. In the initial explanation, the daughter had translated the letter. In the subsequent explanation, ChatGPT had translated it and the daughter had checked it. One account might simply be shorthand for the other. The judgment does not suggest that the distinction was itself decisive. Nevertheless, for lawyers assessing the provenance of evidence, the difference between translating a document and checking someone else’s translation is not insignificant.

The judge’s criticism

Paragraph 28 contains the observation that, in my view, lawyers should concentrate on: “It is unfortunate that it fell to the Tribunal to notice this”. The judge was referring to the discovery of the apparent AI-generated text in the letter, something the appellant’s solicitors had apparently failed to identify before submitting it. The judge also criticised the absence of a statement of truth from a witness who was intended to give oral evidence. These are separate issues. One concerns the preparation and checking of a document. The other concerns the form in which witness evidence was presented. Neither requires a finding that the underlying Arabic was mistranslated. That is precisely why the episode is worth examining. Lawyers routinely receive documents prepared by clients, witnesses, foreign counsel, administrative staff and other third parties. They cannot

personally create or verify every piece of information those documents contain. But when does reasonable reliance on material prepared by others become an inadequate check on evidence submitted in their professional capacity? And how far should lawyers be expected to investigate the use of AI in producing that material?

Two very different kinds of checking

For me, AA exposes a distinction that is frequently overlooked when lawyers discuss AI translation. The first kind of checking concerns the document itself. Does it contain extraneous material? Is it complete? Does it appear to be the witness’s evidence rather than a draft, template or chatbot response? Has the final version been read before filing? Does it satisfy the relevant procedural requirements? In this case, the telltale sentence was in English. Detecting it required no knowledge of Arabic and no particular expertise in translation. That is what makes the judge’s criticism difficult to dismiss. The second kind of checking is much harder. Does the English version accurately and completely communicate what the witness wrote in Arabic? Has anything been omitted, added, softened or made more emphatic? Have factual assertions retained their meaning? Has the translation introduced language that changes the character or certainty of the evidence? Answering those questions requires more than reading the English fluently. It requires an assessment against the original by someone competent to perform that task. A lawyer who does not read Arabic may be able to identify a chatbot’s leftover instruction. The same lawyer may be entirely unable to identify a subtle mistranslation that materially changes the witness’s account.

The fact that one check has been performed tells us very little about whether the other has. The problem with ‘human involvement’

There is another aspect of this case I find revealing. The witness said his daughter had compared the Arabic and English versions to ensure that the meaning was the same. That may have been a useful check. There is no finding that she was unable to perform it or that the translation was inaccurate. But should the mere fact that a human has reviewed an AI-generated translation be sufficient to reassure a lawyer relying on it? I would suggest not, without knowing more about the nature of the review. Who carried it out? What linguistic competence did that person possess? Did they compare the complete texts? Were they checking for accuracy, omissions and alterations of meaning, or simply whether the English appeared to reflect the general sense of the Arabic?

Those are quite different exercises.

In a legal setting, the distinction matters because the translation is not merely facilitating informal communication. It is being used as evidence. The judgment does not determine whether the daughter’s review was adequate. Nor does it establish what further verification, if any, the solicitors undertook. It does, however, provide a useful example of why the presence of a human somewhere in an AI-assisted process should not automatically be equated with meaningful quality assurance.

Judicial tolerance is not judicial approval

There is an important qualification to all this.

Paragraph 29 records that the Home Office presenting officer did not argue that the use of AI for translation, with some human involvement, warranted reducing the weight given to YR’s evidence on that particular ground. The judge ultimately found that the evidence of the two supporting witnesses did not particularly strengthen the appellant’s claim. The appeal was dismissed following an assessment of credibility and the evidence as a whole. But the Tribunal did not find that ChatGPT

had produced an inaccurate translation. Nor did it establish a general rule that ChatGPT translations checked by a family member are acceptable evidence. That distinction is important. It would be easy to present AA as another case where AI translation went wrong and a litigant suffered the consequences. The judgment does not support that conclusion. Equally, it would be misleading to interpret the absence of a translation-related penalty as judicial endorsement of AI-assisted translation. What the decision demonstrates is narrower, but arguably more interesting: a court can be critical of the way AI-assisted evidence was prepared and submitted without treating AI involvement as an automatic reason for discounting that evidence.

A different warning from the cases already emerging

In my earlier discussion of Lozano Gonzάlez v Roberge, a Canadian tribunal confronted a ChatGPT translation of legislation that had effectively rewritten the statutory provisions on which a litigant relied. In Euroboor BV v Grafova, an American court struggled to understand the reasoning in a Dutch judgment supplied in a Google Translate version. Those cases raised questions about what happens when translated legal material fails to communicate the meaning on which a legal argument depends.

AA raises a related but different problem. Here, the visible failing was not a demonstrated mistranslation. It was the failure to identify an obvious indication of chatbot involvement before the document reached the Tribunal. That brings the issue much closer to the everyday work of lawyers managing evidence. It is one thing to ask whether AI can translate accurately enough for use in proceedings. It is another to ask what a legal team must do before relying on a document that someone else has translated using AI. The first question concerns technological performance and linguistic reliability. The second concerns professional judgment, document control and accountability. The answers are connected, but they are not the same.

Who takes responsibility?

Nothing in AA establishes professional misconduct by the solicitors, or a particular sanction for submitting an AI-translated document. Nor should a decision of a UK First-tier Tribunal be treated as laying down a universal standard for lawyers in other jurisdictions. But the wider questions transcend the procedural rules of any single court. Suppose a witness sends a lawyer an English statement translated from another language using ChatGPT. The lawyer cannot read the original language. The witness assures the lawyer that a relative has checked the translation. The English looks plausible. The document is then filed. What exactly is the lawyer relying on? The witness’s assurance? The relative’s linguistic ability? The apparent fluency of the English? The reputation of the AI system? And what evidence is there of the verification process if the translation is subsequently challenged?

I do not think the answer is that every lawyer must personally translate every foreign-language document or that AI can never form part of a translation workflow. The question is whether the lawyer has sufficient grounds for treating the version filed as a reliable representation of the underlying evidence. That is a question about the process as well as the product.

A warning worth taking seriously

The AI-generated sentence in AA was conspicuous enough for the judge to notice. Its presence was embarrassing, but it also served a useful purpose: it made the use of ChatGPT visible and prompted questions about the document’s preparation. Many machine-translated documents contain no such obvious clue. They look like perfectly ordinary English documents. Some may be entirely accurate. Others may not be. The difficulty is that the absence of a conspicuous error tells us nothing reliable

about the accuracy of the underlying translation. For lawyers, that is the uncomfortable point. The judge’s observation in AA should not be read as a finding that AI translation is inherently unreliable It should be read as a reminder that someone must take responsibility for what reaches the court.

If the legal team misses an obvious trace of ChatGPT that can be detected simply by reading the English, what basis does it have for confidence in the parts of the document that can only be checked against the original language?

That is a question worth asking before the next witness letter is filed.

 

#Litigation #ProfessionalResponsibility #LegalTranslation #LegalTech #AIandLaw #Evidence #LegalRisk #LawyersOfLinkedin

When a Greek court delivers a judgment, the parties involved naturally want to know what the court has decided and what happens next. For international clients who do not speak Greek, obtaining a clear and accurate English translation is often essential to understanding the outcome of the proceedings and discussing the implications with their Greek lawyers. The same applies to lawyers practising outside Greece who advise clients involved in Greek litigation. They may need to examine the judgment to understand the court’s reasoning, identify the issues decided and discuss the available options with the Greek legal team.

However, translating a Greek court judgment presents some distinctive challenges. Greek judicial decisions frequently contain lengthy and complex legal reasoning expressed in highly formal language. Procedural concepts may have no straightforward English equivalents, while apparently familiar terms can conceal important differences between legal systems. These problems become particularly significant when the judgment may be challenged on appeal or when the parties need to understand its consequences.

And with artificial intelligence now making it possible to generate an English translation or summary of a lengthy judgment in seconds, there is a further question: how much confidence can international clients and their lawyers place in the resulting text?

Understanding the structure of a Greek court judgment

Greek court judgments follow established drafting conventions which reflect the structure of Greek judicial reasoning and the procedural rules governing the proceedings. Depending on the court and type of proceedings, the judgment will ordinarily identify the court and parties, record relevant procedural information and set out the court’s reasoning before stating its decision. Two sections are especially important when translating a Greek judgment. The first is the σκεπτικό, the court’s reasoning, often introduced by the formula ΣΚΕΦΘΗΚΕ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΑ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΝΟΜΟ (having considered the matter in accordance with the law). This part of the judgment explains the legal basis on which the court has reached its conclusions. It may contain lengthy discussions of statutory provisions, references to case law and an examination of the parties’ arguments. The second is the διατακτικό, the operative part, commonly introduced by the expression ΓΙΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΛΟΓΟΥΣ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ (for these reasons). The operative part records the court’s decisions on the matters before it, including the disposition of claims and any orders made.

For a foreign reader, the relationship between these sections is fundamental to understanding what the judgment actually says.

The linguistic complexity of Greek judicial decisions

The language of Greek judgments presents difficulties that extend beyond specialised legal terminology. Greek judicial writing frequently employs long sentences containing multiple subordinate clauses. The syntax can be intricate, with qualifications and exceptions embedded within the same sentence as the principal legal proposition. In addition, some judicial formulations retain features of the older formal language associated with καθαρεύουσα, particularly in established expressions and conventional legal phraseology.

For translators working from Greek into English, these characteristics demand close attention to the grammatical and logical relationships within the text. The translator must establish precisely which proposition is being qualified, what a particular pronoun or participle refers to and whether a statement reflects the court’s conclusion or the position of one of the parties. These distinctions can become difficult to follow when a sentence extends over much of a paragraph. English legal writing generally permits a different approach to sentence construction. A lengthy Greek sentence may therefore need to be divided or restructured in English to make the reasoning intelligible. However, restructuring must preserve the original logical relationships. Careless division of a sentence can detach a qualification from the proposition to which it relates or alter the relationship between the court’s findings and its conclusions. This is where the ability to think and write like a lawyer becomes particularly valuable. Understanding the legal argument allows the translator to reconstruct it in clear English while preserving its precise meaning. The objective is an English text that a lawyer can read naturally and follow without losing any of the legal substance contained in the Greek original.

When is a Greek court judgment final?

One of the most revealing examples of the difficulties involved in translating Greek judgments concerns the terminology used to describe their procedural status. Consider the expression τελεσίδικη απόφαση. A reader encountering the English expression “final judgment” might reasonably assume that the judgment can no longer be challenged. Greek procedural law, however, recognises distinctions that make this apparently straightforward translation potentially misleading. In our paper Translating Greece’s Procedural Codes, presented at the 2023 conference of the Hellenic Society for Terminology, Daniel Webber and I examined the treatment of procedural terminology in existing Greek-English legal dictionaries. We found that all four dictionaries examined rendered τελεσίδικη απόφαση using variants of “final judgment” or “final decision”, without adequately reflecting the procedural distinctions recognised by Greek law. An οριστική απόφαση may be final in the sense that it disposes of the matter before the court, while remaining open to ordinary legal remedies. A τελεσίδικη απόφαση has reached a different procedural position, generally because the relevant ordinary legal remedies have been exhausted or the periods for exercising them have expired. Greek procedural law also recognises the category of ανέκκλητη απόφαση, concerning judgments which by their nature are not amenable to the relevant remedies, as well as αμετάκλητη απόφαση, which involves the exhaustion of available legal remedies, including the relevant avenues of recourse to higher courts.

For international clients, these distinctions can be important to understanding the procedural history of their case. They also illustrate the difficulties faced by foreign lawyers who may be familiar with the English word “final” but unfamiliar with the different categories recognised under Greek law. The translation needs to communicate the source terminology accurately without creating a misleading impression about the status of the decision. Determining whether a particular judgment can still be challenged, or what consequences follow from its procedural status, is a matter for the lawyers responsible for the proceedings.

Errors in the original Greek judgment: an overlooked translation problem

There is another difficulty which frequently arises in legal translation and which is easily overlooked by the end user: the original Greek document may itself contain errors. At JurTrans, our experience of translating Greek legal documents has made us particularly conscious of this problem. In an article published in January 2025, I reported that during 2024 we translated 946 Greek legal documents into English and found that approximately 95% contained at least one error of some kind. These figures relate to JurTrans’s own workload, which included various categories of legal documents. They should not be interpreted as a representative statistical study of the quality of Greek court judgments. Nevertheless, they illustrate how frequently source-text problems arise in our translation work. Some errors are relatively straightforward, while others require considerably more research to identify and understand. A judgment may refer to an incorrect article of legislation or contain an ambiguous statutory citation. There may also be inconsistencies in how a particular legal term is used. The translator must determine whether the apparent inconsistency has a reasonable explanation or whether there is a genuine problem in the Greek text.

In The legal translator as detective, I described an example from our translation work involving a reference to an article of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure. The provision cited in the document appeared to have no connection with the procedural steps being described. After checking the surrounding provisions and searching the Code, I eventually discovered that the reference related to an earlier version of the legislation. The source document had failed to make that historical context clear. Having identified the issue, I suggested that the instructing lawyer clarify the Greek wording. He agreed. The incident is a good illustration of the research that may be necessary to understand a legal text correctly. Given the successive amendments made to Greek legislation, consulting the current version of a statutory provision may sometimes be insufficient to establish the meaning of a historical reference.

Where a judgment contains an apparent error, the translator must preserve the integrity of the source text while drawing the issue to the attention of the instructing lawyer where appropriate. A careful translation process can therefore reveal problems which might otherwise remain unnoticed, particularly by clients who cannot consult the Greek original.

Why relying on AI-generated summaries of Greek judgments is risky

The ability to obtain an instant summary of a lengthy court judgment is understandably attractive. International clients may want an immediate answer to whether the proceedings have been successful, while foreign lawyers may need to understand the broad significance of a decision before speaking to their Greek counterparts. Generative AI systems appear to offer a convenient solution. A document can be uploaded and a short English summary requested in a matter of seconds. The difficulty lies in the reliability of that summary. Court judgments often depend on distinctions which can be lost when a lengthy text is compressed into a short narrative. A statutory exception may substantially qualify a legal proposition. The court may accept part of a party’s argument while rejecting another part. An apparently straightforward conclusion may depend on a particular interpretation of the facts or the application of a specific procedural rule. If a summary overlooks one of these qualifications, the reader may be left with an inaccurate understanding of the decision. There is also the risk that an automated system will fail to distinguish correctly between the parties’ submissions and the findings of the court. Greek judgments may reproduce the arguments advanced by litigants before explaining whether those arguments have been accepted. An AI-generated summary which attributes a rejected submission to the court would fundamentally misrepresent that part of the judgment.

These concerns are consistent with findings in the growing academic literature on automatic legal-document summarisation. In a 2024 study of large language models and generative systems for summarising court judgments, Aniket Deroy, Kripabandhu Ghosh and Saptarshi Ghosh examined systems using judgments from the supreme courts of the United Kingdom and India. Although generative systems performed relatively well according to conventional automatic evaluation metrics, closer examination identified inconsistencies in their summaries. The researchers concluded that further improvements were needed before such systems could be considered sufficiently reliable without detailed human checking. More recently, a 2026 review of legal-document summarisation research highlighted the difficulty of preserving the argumentative structure of judgments and the limitations of evaluation methods which primarily measure similarities in wording rather than legal accuracy.

Neither study, though, specifically evaluates Greek court judgments, but both identify problems relevant to the task of summarising complex judicial reasoning. The challenge is compounded when a Greek judgment is summarised directly into English. The system is then required to interpret the Greek legal text and produce a compressed account in another language, potentially concealing errors from readers who cannot independently verify the original.

For lawyers considering the implications of a judgment, a summary cannot provide the level of detail available in an accurate translation of the full text. The actual wording of the court’s reasoning may be central to understanding the decision and discussing possible further steps with Greek counsel.

What does research tell us about AI translation from Greek into English?

The limitations of automated translation in the Greek-English legal context have also been the subject of empirical research. In September 2026, Vilelmini Sosoni and I published a chapter in Springer’s International Handbook of Legal Language and Communication entitled Translating Normative Legal Texts: A Comparative Evaluation of Neural Machine Translation and Generative Artificial Intelligence Models in the Greek-English Language Pair. The study compared a neural machine translation system trained on legal-domain material with three generative AI models. We evaluated translations of two Greek property law texts, comprising planning legislation and a property sale agreement, using automatic translation-quality metrics alongside detailed human error analysis. Our findings were revealing. Accuracy errors predominated across the systems examined, and most were classified as major in severity. Although the generated English generally displayed adequate fluency, the generative AI models did not systematically outperform the specialist neural machine translation system.

These findings concern normative legal texts rather than court judgments. Their significance for the present discussion lies in the difficulties the systems encountered when translating specialised Greek legal concepts into English. The results reinforce the need to distinguish between an English text that reads fluently and one that faithfully communicates the legal meaning of its Greek source. A system may produce entirely natural English while selecting an inappropriate equivalent for a Greek procedural concept or failing to preserve an important qualification. Recognising such problems requires detailed knowledge of the source legal system and the ability to evaluate the translation against the original. Technology certainly has useful applications in legal translation, particularly in supporting research and maintaining terminological resources. However, the limitations identified in empirical studies call for considerable caution when using AI or machine translation to communicate the substance of court judgments.

At JurTrans, our approach to documents of this nature is based on establishing the meaning of the Greek text through specialist legal-linguistic analysis and producing an English translation whose accuracy can be carefully verified against the source.

Preparing Greek judgments and appeal documents for international readers

The usefulness of a Greek-English legal translation also depends on understanding the circumstances in which it will be read. For a Greek lawyer representing an international client, the primary objective may be to enable that client to understand the court’s decision and participate meaningfully in discussions about the case. Lawyers practising outside Greece may require more detailed access to the reasoning, particularly where the litigation has implications for their client’s commercial activities or wider legal affairs. In either situation, the translator benefits from understanding the purpose of the assignment. Where a judgment refers extensively to previous decisions or procedural documents, access to those materials may assist with the interpretation of terminology and the maintenance of consistency across the translations. The English text should also enable the reader to locate the corresponding material in the Greek original. This requires attention to the document’s structure, the identification of the parties and the reproduction of references to legislation and earlier decisions. Where only selected passages are translated, the extent of the translation should be clearly identified so that the reader is aware of the material covered. However, where the purpose is to understand the judgment as a whole, a complete translation is generally more useful than an abbreviated account which may omit context essential to the court’s reasoning. The appropriate scope should be agreed with the instructing lawyer, who remains responsible for determining how the translated document will be used in connection with the proceedings.

The value of specialist Greek-English legal translation expertise

At JurTrans, we have specialised in Greek-English legal and financial translation for three decades. Our work involves examining legal documents within their procedural and substantive context, with particular attention to terminology whose meaning depends on the structure of the Greek legal system. That experience is supported by formal legal education, university-level teaching experience and sustained involvement in academic research into legal translation.

Through our work on the Lex Graeca project, including the translation of major Greek codes (both substantive and procedural) into English, we have also developed extensive experience in researching Greek legal terminology and establishing consistent English renderings of concepts which are often inadequately covered by existing reference works.

We have translated many millions of words over those decades and have countless satisfied clients.  These figures reflect the depth of experience accumulated across a broad range of legal assignments.

Our approach to translating Greek court judgments is informed by detailed familiarity with the intricacies of Greek law and an appreciation of how the English translation will be understood by lawyers accustomed to different legal systems.

We approach each text with the analytical mindset of a lawyer, examining the reasoning and procedural context before settling on the most appropriate English terminology. Equally important is close attention to detail. Statutory references are checked where necessary, potential inconsistencies are investigated and questions arising from the Greek original are raised with the instructing lawyer when clarification is required. This is supported by specialist legal reference resources, access to current legal databases and a commitment to the confidentiality of clients’ documents.

For international clients and their legal advisers, the objective is to provide an English translation which communicates the substance of the Greek judgment faithfully and allows the legal issues to be discussed on an informed basis.

 

Frequently asked questions about translating Greek court judgments

Does a Greek court judgment need to be translated in full?

The appropriate scope depends on why the translation is required. Where an international client or foreign lawyer needs to understand the complete reasoning and outcome of the proceedings, a full translation is generally the most useful option. Translations of selected passages may also be appropriate, provided their scope is clearly identified and agreed with the instructing lawyer.

 

Can AI summarise a Greek judgment accurately?

AI-generated summaries may provide preliminary orientation, but their reliability should not be assumed. Research into automated judgment summarisation has identified factual inconsistencies, while studies of Greek-English legal translation have found substantial accuracy errors in automated outputs. Where a judgment’s meaning is important, the original text and an accurate professional translation provide a more dependable basis for legal discussion.

What should be provided when commissioning a Greek court judgment translation?

Providing the complete Greek document and, where relevant, earlier decisions or existing translations can help the translator understand the procedural context and maintain consistent terminology. It is also useful to explain who will read the translation and whether particular cross-references or presentation requirements need to be preserved.

Greek court judgment and appeal translation services at JurTrans

Greek court judgments and appeals can be demanding documents to translate. Their legal meaning depends on the procedural context, the structure of judicial reasoning and the specialised terminology of Greek law.

For international clients and the lawyers advising them, an accurate English translation provides the basis for understanding what the Greek court has decided and discussing its significance with the Greek legal team.

JurTrans provides specialist Greek-English translation of court judgments, appeal documents and related litigation materials, drawing on decades of practical experience and academic research into legal language.

If you require an English translation of a Greek court judgment or documents relating to an appeal, please contact JurTrans or email info@jurtrans.com.

JurTrans is a specialist legal translation company and does not provide legal advice. This article addresses legal translation and communication issues for general information. Questions concerning legal rights, procedural remedies and the consequences of court decisions should be addressed to the lawyers responsible for the proceedings.

 

 

A large Greek manufacturing company operates multiple facilities across the country. Head office develops workplace safety policies in Greek, including detailed procedures for end-of-shift protocols. One policy specifies when workers must perform a critical safety step: “Μετά το πέρας της βάρδιας”: after the end of the shift.

At a facility in a different part of the country employing significant numbers of foreign workers, local HR staff receive the new safety policy from head office. They use generative AI to translate it into English. AI renders “Μετά το πέρας της βάρδιας” as “at the end of the shift.” The English version is distributed to foreign workers and sent to the external contractor hired to deliver safety training in English. No one at the facility checks the translation against the Greek source. The compliance team at head office never sees the English version. Translation is treated as an administrative task, not a safety matter requiring technical review.

The foreign workers can’t read Greek. They rely entirely on the English translation to understand their safety obligations. The external trainer uses the translated document to deliver the training. The trainer doesn’t read Greek either. Workers are instructed to perform the safety step “at the end of the shift” while the machinery is still running, while hazards remain active, during the final moments of operational activity. The Greek instruction said to wait until after the shift ends. The English version says to act while the shift is ending. One preposition moved the compliance window into a hazard zone.

The safety risk

The timing of a safety instruction defines when a worker is protected. “After the end of the shift” means the safety step occurs when equipment has been powered down, when moving parts have stopped, when the work environment has transitioned from active to safe. The instruction assumes hazards have been neutralised before the worker acts.

“At the end of the shift” relocates that action to the closing moments of work when machinery is still operational, when the environment remains hazardous. The worker performs the same physical action, but in a different risk context. The mistranslation doesn’t change what the worker does. It changes when the worker is exposed.

This is how language determines the scope of safety obligations. Words specify the conditions under which a duty arises. Legal scholars examining statutory interpretation have documented how temporal markers (words like “after,” “during,” “before”) define when legal obligations apply and when they don’t[1]. When those markers are mistranslated, the obligation shifts to a different point in time, governed by different factual conditions.

In workplace safety, that shift can mean the difference between a controlled environment and an active hazard zone.

The legal problem

The company’s compliance documentation shows workers followed the English procedures. Inspectors review training records, incident logs, and safety audits; all based on the translated policy. Everything appears compliant.

But compliance with the English version is not compliance with the policy the company actually issued. The Greek source required one action. The English translation required another. Workers performed the action the translation instructed them to perform, not the action the company’s safety management system required.

If an injury occurs, the company cannot demonstrate that its workforce followed the procedures designed to mitigate the specific risk. The procedures workers followed were created by the translation error, not by the company’s safety assessment. The company has lost the ability to show that the control measure it designed was actually implemented.

The translated policy became a shadow document; an instruction that looks authoritative, that workers rely on, that trainers use, but that doesn’t match what the organisation requires under its own safety framework.

Why it happened

The output was fluent. The sentence structure was natural. “At the end of the shift” sounds plausible in English. No one checked the translation because they assumed AI handles this correctly. That assumption may appear reasonable. Translation tools have indeed improved. They remain problematic. They remain tools. And critically, most users don’t have the expertise to verify output in languages they don’t speak. So they can’t spot mistakes like this.

The error wasn’t visible to anyone in the chain: not to the HR department that distributed the policy, not to the contractor who delivered the training, not to the workers who implemented it. The only person who could have caught it would need to read both Greek and English, understand workplace safety terminology in both languages, and recognise that the temporal relationship between the safety step and the end of the shift had changed.

That’s not a linguistic skill. It’s a specialised professional competence that sits at the intersection of translation, legal interpretation, and occupational safety.

What this means for compliance

When legal and safety documents cross language boundaries, the translated text determines how obligations are understood and implemented. If the translation changes when a duty applies, it changes what compliance looks like in practice.

This isn’t unique to workplace safety. Contracts, regulatory filings, court judgments, and corporate policies all rely on precise language to define when parties must act, when rights vest, when duties terminate. Mistranslation of temporal language (or indeed any language that defines the conditions under which an obligation arises) creates a gap between what the document requires and what people believe it requires.

That gap invalidates the compliance chain. You can’t prove you followed a procedure if the procedure you followed was created by translation error.

Professional legal translators understand this. We know that translating “μετά” as “at” instead of “after” isn’t a minor linguistic choice. It’s a change in when the legal or safety obligation applies. We verify temporal markers, cross-check procedural language, and flag discrepancies that shift the scope of what’s required.

AI tools don’t do that. They produce fluent output that sounds correct. They don’t understand that one preposition determines whether a worker is safe or exposed. They don’t know when “close enough” isn’t close enough.

For companies relying on AI translation for legal or safety documents, the risk is that the translation becomes the policy. And that nobody notices until something goes wrong.

[1] see for example R. H. Fallon, “The Meaning of Legal ‘Meaning’ and Its Implications for Theories of Legal Interpretation,” University of Chicago Law Review 82:1235

Today my timeline is filled with stories of the Greek Minister of Justice wanting to use AI-powered machine translation tools for interpreting in court settings and translating legal documents in various judicial proceedings. Settings where attention to detail should certainly matter.

The law is all about wielding words accurately (or deliberately wielding them in deliberately ambiguous ways). But let’s focus on the scenario where accuracy is what you’re after because you want / need to understand your rights and obligations in a legal setting; you want/need to make an important legal decision, etc.

In a post I did yesterday I stressed that the constancy of legal words is important; such constancy is important for a host of important reasons lawyers will immediately recognise, just some of which are legal certainty and the rule of law.

So I thought I’d run a little test connected to something I was working on.

I asked ChatGPT to translate a legal provision from Greek to English:

The text to be translated

This is the output:

ChatGPT’s output

Sounds quite plausible and convincing.

But let’s not forget that MT/AI systems used in translation are known for creating the “illusion of fluidity”[1].

They’re also known for a whole series of other problems (omitting bits of the text, changing negative obligations into positive ones, inconsistent use of terms, made-up words, etc.) but they are not relevant to us today.

What’s relevant today is this “illusion of fluidity”. On first reading the translation seems to be ok. It seems right.

On closer reading, especially if you compare it with the original, you start to spot “issues”.

Are you even able to compare it to the original to be able to identify any issues?

In this particular case, the article comes from a convention that already exists in English so we can easily determine what is right and what’s not. The relevant article reads as follows:

The “actual” legal provision

Admittedly, the original and “translation” are very similar.

There are differences you can easily spot:

  1. “Entitled to benefit” vs. “Entitled to avail himself of”:
  2. “Willful misconduct on its part” vs. “His wilful misconduct”:
  3. “According to the law of the court having jurisdiction over the matter” vs. “In accordance with the law of the court or tribunal seized of the case”:
  4. “Considered equivalent to willful misconduct” vs. “Considered as equivalent to wilful misconduct”:
  5. “Omission” vs. “Default”

Some are probably not that important (you get the general idea whether worded in one way or the other). Are you only after a general idea though? Or as a lawyer/client do you want to precisely understand what the text is saying?

Others change the legal meaning utterly.

It does get the specialist term “wilful misconduct” right. Other online tools get it wrong (deliberate poor management / deliberate mismanagement / wilful mismanagement).

Although I didn’t ask for it, ChatGPT added “its” “view” about the output generated:

ChatGPT’s view of its output

Was it asked to provide simpler, more straightforward phrasing? We see a clear translational strategy here: opting for plainer language to make the text easier to read. Probably not a bad thing. Not the appropriate strategy though in this context.

It makes the bold assertion that both the original English text and its “output” are legally correct.

So I asked the obvious question:

ChatGPT generated this response:

If lawyers use precise wording “to avoid ambiguity” why does this system generate a “rough” translation?

So while I was focused on the details, and getting the translation “right”, our online tool was not.

ChatGPT provided an unofficial rendering of the provision. While the meaning may be “roughly the same”, it does not carry the same legal weight or and certainly doesn’t contain the precise wording as the official version.

Why does this matter?

Words matter in law … even translated words.

Established wording needs to be maintained.

Established wording is what lawyers will recognise and are used to working with.

Any deviation from established wording creates headaches.

Sticking to established wording saves users of the translation time, and avoids a lot of head-scratching and bewilderment of the type “so legally speaking what does that actually mean”?

Legal language is a “controlled” language. You cannot just use any old words you want.

Randomly generated “rough” translations introduce inefficiencies into lawyerly processes.

Randomly generated “rough” translations create false impressions of legal rules / legal obligations, especially if you aren’t an expert in that area of law; say, for example, you’re the client rather the lawyer.

Basically with tools like this you get “a translation”.

But …

Is it “the translation” you need?

Is it a translation you can use?

Is it a translation you can rely on in your lawyerly dealings?

Is it a translation you can trust?

It is a translation you can base decisions on?

Work with expert legal translators if you need your legal words to count.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375697263_La_TA_neuronale_et_ses_defis_compte_rendu_d’une_experience_pedagogique_en_traduction_economique

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