Tag: #greeklawyers

No one reads a legal text as closely as a legal translator in their effort to understand what it says and means, and to render that appropriately in another language.

While modern tech certainly has its uses, this is not one of them.

Today’s musings on legal translation were inspired by the sort of research I regularly need to do to be able to translate properly and accurately, so that the client gets a text that makes sense and is useable; an impeccable legal translation they can trust and rely on.

One particular sentence in the document I was translating referred to a specific article of the Greek code of civil procedure. It was cited as support for a set of procedural steps that were taken in proceedings (X did Y pursuant to Article Z). But something didn’t feel right. When I actually consulted Article Z of that code, I noticed that it was talking about something completely different.

My initial thought was it was just another of the classic mistakes one finds in Greek legal documents. That it was a case of the drafting lawyer having mistyped the article number.  That is the typical sort of thing I flag to my lawyer clients.

So I searched the nearby articles of the code to see if they were relevant. Nope.

I did a keyword search. Nothing relevant in the code.

Then it occurred to me what was going on. The reference to that article was not to the current version of the code but one of the older versions.

In recent years there has been a flurry of overhauls and major amendments to Greece’s core codes, including the code of civil procedure. Sometimes the pace of change in the codes can be dizzying.

Consulting a past version of the code I was able to identify what the sentence was actually referring to. Of course, having worked on the translations of all the major codes in recent years as part of the Lex Graeca project made the task of identifying the past version easier.

To ensure the end user of the translation fully understood what was being said in that section of the text, I proposed that the lawyer redraft the Greek text to make it clear that it was the older version of the code being referred to, not the current one. He agreed.

Happy drafting lawyer. Happy end user. Potential confusion avoided.

At Jurtrans, we do the head-scratching so you don’t have to. We offer legal translations that flag potential problems in the source text and offer work-arounds and solutions to ensure effective legal communication. We offer services that MT and AI can’t. We care about getting your legal communication right.

If you’re a Greek lawyer and want a diligently-researched, carefully-crafted English translation of a  Greek legal text, get in touch with us at info@jurtrans.com.

properly-researched Greek-English legal translations

Many lawyers seem to think they can just press a button and technology will miraculously produce a useable translation they can present to clients to aid understanding of legal provisions or help those clients grasp what their rights and obligations are.

Much has been written about how writing in simpler language makes it easier for the machine to “translate”.

Except, of course, legal language is hardly ever simple and straightforward. Words and concepts are connected to other provisions and concepts in a complicated web of meaning. And that meaning needs to come across in the translated version of the legal text. Unsurprisingly, machines fail a lot in relation to this.

But what if there are mistakes in the legal text?

Machines can’t identify mistakes. If the person reading the translated version doesn’t know the language the original document was written in, and isn’t expert in the relevant area of law, they may not be able to spot those issues. The lawyer who pressed the “translate” button may not be able to spot them either.

And talking of lawyers and law professionals not spotting things, I wanted to share some thoughts on errors in legal documents (be they contracts, articles of associations, pleadings, judgments, legislation, etc.), which are the sort of things we at Jurtrans typically translate.

Errors in Greek legal documents are very common.

Much more common than you’d imagine.

In 2024 we translated 946 Greek legal documents into English.

An astonishing 95% of them contained one or more errors of various types.

That’s a lot of errors.

And a lot of comments from us pointing out the errors and oversights in the Greek texts.

Getting an error-free legal text for translation from Greek to English really is the exception rather than the rule in our experience.

And many of those errors can have significant consequences if they aren’t spotted in time. More of which at another time …

To repeat the oft-heard phrase “no one reads a legal document as carefully as a legal translator”.  Machines certainly don’t have that capability because they simply match patterns, they don’t understand meaning.

So what sort of errors do we typically see?

  • Incomplete citations. For example, Article 95 is mentioned. But Article 95 of what? Of the contract the phrase appears in? Of the governing law? Of some other piece of legislation?  With our deep knowledge of Greek law we can often tell which piece of legislation is meant and can add a comment about that.
  • Incorrect citations. For example, the wrong governing legislation is cited, or the wrong article and paragraph number are cited, or the wrong judgment is cited.
  • Related to this, we frequently see legislation being cited that is no longer in force at the time the document was drafted. This happens a lot in company law texts when the old regime under Law 2190/1920 is cited despite the legislation being overhauled by Law 4548/2018.
  • Similarly, we often encounter numbers being reversed. Greek legislation has a numerical citation so (made up example) Law 1959/2008 could be cited mistakenly as Law 1995/2008.
  • Inconsistent paragraph / section numbering. Greek has its own unique numbering system based on Greek letters and characters. We often see lists omitting ‘στ’ (equivalent of ‘f) and going straight from ‘ε΄ το ‘ζ. Τhat can throw off the numbering scheme. It’s often the case that ‘στ’ is omitted at one location in the document but included in other locations. Likewise, we often see paragraph numbering jumping from say paragraph 3 to paragraph 5 with no paragraph 4 in between.
  • Another frequent problem is the drafting lawyer/judge mixes up who the parties are and what roles they hold. Plaintiff/claimant is confused with defendant at some point in the text, for example.
  • We often encounter sections of garbled text because of a copy-paste issue meaning part of a sentence is missing. The grammar / syntax is often messed up in this section of the text making it impossible to deduce what the correct intended meaning is.
  • Often there is a lack of logical flow in the argumentation or there are contradictions between what was said at the start of the text and what is said further down.
  • “Things left dangling” are quite frequent. For example a sentence may set up the logic of a disjunctive list (a or b) we only the information relating to ‘a’ is provided.
  • Subject-verb disagreement. Single subjects matched with plural verbs, or vice versa.
  • Single and plural nouns confused. Although the text refers to one buyer elsewhere it refers to several buyers.
  • Mistakes of fact, like saying such and such a place is in England when it is in Scotland.
  • Conflicting information in different parts of the text (for example a debt of a specific amount is mentioned at the start, but a higher / lower / other amount is mentioned further down)
  • Incorrect references to foreign legal documents.
  • On a related point, spelling mistakes in the English names of foreign legal acts or in foreign abbreviations, for example the General Rules for International Factoring being abbreviated as GRIP in the Greek text instead of GRIF.
  • Forgetting to consistently use “capitalised terms” that have been assigned a special meaning in the document.
  • Introducing capitalised terms that are nowhere defined in the document. For example in a lease defining the “Leased Property” in detail but then going on to call it the “Building”.
  • Related to the foregoing point, elegant variation in terms used, so an agreement is called just that (an “agreement”) in one paragraph, but is called a “contract” in another.
  • Use of incorrect terminology for the area of law or use of outdated terms that come from an older version of the legislation.
  • Ambiguously worded phrases where two or more possible intended meanings co-exist
  • Numbers written out in full do not match the numbers presented arithmetically.

Given our long years of professional experience in translating Greek legal texts into English, we can easily spot these errors and save egg on our clients’ faces. Machine translation and generative AI systems certainly can’t do that.

 

Following on from yesterday’s musings on the utility of technological tools for legal translation purposes, let’s hear today what a lecturer in family law has to say about the topic:

“Regarding … improving family experiences, numerous AI-based tools are designed to support clients or lawyers, but their accuracy strongly depends on the case details.

No doubt automatised legal translators [sic] have rapidly pro­gressed in the last few years, yet their accuracy compared to the sworn translator can still be questioned. …

Yet, they tend to fall short in complicated matters, particularly highly contextual sentenc­es.

Additionally, as a scholar deeply immersed in Japanese family law, I can assess that the existing translators [sic] can mislead about the true sense of the content of the legal norms or documents and, thus, can be treated only as a support tool. …

Family law requires an exact understanding of the analysed text, including legal terms and human emotions that can be expressed in various ways, such as non-verbal messages. …

Given the noticeable number of international couples communicating with each other or their children in different languages, detailed knowledge about the family and personal situation cannot depend on auto­matic translation, which cannot grasp the significance of words and non-verbal mes­sages at this stage.

Conversely, clients seeking legal information through automated translations could find incomplete or false information.

Thus, despite the rapid pace of development of AI-based legal translations, family lawyers should consider em­ploying reasoning based on them as high-risk assumptions, mainly due to the ina­bility to grasp subtleties and cultural nuances.

This raises an essential question – is AI-based translation useful at all if a specialised human translator will probably al­ways be more accurate than machines and one step ahead, despite the slower work?”

Piegzik, M.A., “The Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Family Law –
Brand New or Well-known Idea?” Folia Iuridica Universitatis Wratislaviensis
2024 vol. 13 (2), 26–51

I’d argue these considerations do not apply just to family law but to all branches of law.

The language of the law is hard. Translating the language of the law is hard.

It still confounds technology. There are no simple push-of-a-button solutions.

If you need help seeing through the hype and want someone to tell you the truth about what language technologies can and cannot do when it comes to translating legal documents from Greek to English and vice versa, book a 30-minute call here: https://lnkd.in/edMThP3c

I’m all for technology. I use it all day, every day. But every technology has its limits (and its limitations).

Don’t we all wish that legal language was simple and straightforward and that you could just click a button and you’d have a clear understanding of what a foreign legal text actually says?

Then you’d know what your rights or obligations are.

You’d be able to converse intelligently with your legal counsel or your lawyer could explain things to you in terms you understand.

You’d be able to plan your next steps.

You’d know where you stand.

Nonetheless, 9 years after NMT went mainstream, and 2+ years after genAI was launched, legal language continues to confound technology.

By way of illustration, let’s take a sentence that would be straightforward for any Greek lawyer or experienced professional legal translator working in the Greek-English combination:

The Greek source text

The sentence may be straightforward. But behind it is someone who needs to show they have not been accused of something serious. The words may look innocent on the screen but the real-life implications are huge.

It’s vital to get the translation right.

You don’t want just any old translation.

You want an impeccable translation you can rely on.

How the tech performed

Google Translate gives us this piece of incomprehensible garbage. Remember Google Translate has been working on fine-tuning its neural machine translation engines for 9 years now.

The “English” translation according to Google Translate

– This is neither fluent nor accurate.

– Is employee even correct here? Is the text not actually referring to a “civil servant”?

– What does “occupied the service” even mean?

– The employee occupied the service “due to disciplinary or criminal offences”. What does that even mean?

– Holiday? αργία can mean public/official holiday yes, but in a completely different context. This is a bit like opening a dictionary, seeing 10 different meanings of a word, and picking the first. It might be correct in some context. Not this one.

In law, context is king.

DeepL gives us this rendering:

The “English” translation according to DeepL

– Again this is neither fluent nor accurate.

– Again we have to ask whether employee is the right choice of term here.

– Why is the “suspended from duty” idea now in the first part of the sentence when the Greek is referring to the fact that the department/unit the person works for has not had to handle any disciplinary/criminal complaints against that person?

– “Placed on leave”. Does that fully convey the concept of αργία? Or is it only covering part of the concept? αργία/argia means you are (i) stripped of the right to perform your duties + (ii) you only receive half your salary. “Placed on leave” really doesn’t cut it.

– Placed on “suspension from duty”. Grammatically does that stand in English? It’s beyond awkward and definitely doesn’t flow. Let’s say αναστολή here does mean that the person is suspended from duty. Is that with pay or without pay? How is this concept related to the previous one (αργία)? How does the “translation” differentiate between the two so that the reader actually understands what is going on?

Chatgpt 4.0gives us this:

The “English” translation according to Chatgpt

– This is again not fluent English. Nor is it accurate.

– As with the other versions we have to ask whether “employee” is the correct term.

– The first half of the sentence sort of conveys the meaning but omits quite an important bit of information (that the place where this person works has not had to handle complaints against them). Let’s say you get some general idea. In legal settings, do you really only want to walk away with “some general idea”?

– The second half of the sentence doesn’t fluently link to the second half.

– If αναστολή is the concept of “suspended” why does Chatgpt render αργία as “placed on suspension”? Does it draw an adequate distinction between the terms? From the viewpoint of Greek law, the two terms are quite distinct (related yes, but distinct). Let’s say there is an element of “suspension” in αργία, does the English rendering this tool offers accurately and fully convey what the Greek concept is saying? Or does it not omit a huge part of the meaning? What of the point we highlighted above concerning reduction in pay? How does that get conveyed by the wording chosen here?

Reality check

If you’re an ordinary individual using these tools to get some idea of what the Greek text is saying, can you hand-on-heart say you really understand the Greek after reading these “English” renderings?

If you’re a Greek lawyer who has to explain what is going on to a foreign client, can you hand-on-heart say these various “English” renderings adequately convey what the Greek text says?

Would you feel comfortable relying on them in a professional context?

With tools like these you may gain speed.

“Translations” may be available at the click of a button.

But are the “translations” actually useable?

If you need a translation to understand a legal text or you’re a lawyer who needs one in their legal work, use a specialist legal translator.

Reach out to us at Jurtrans Translations for impeccably accurate Greek-English legal translations.

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