
At least once a month, one of my clients will say “we have a translator that we work with– they take care of us pretty well.” That sets my teeth on edge, because extraordinarily ugly things can result, especially if the translator is merely the lowest bidder but lacks specific legal expertise.
On occasion, the provider is fortuitously somebody I already work with myself, so I’m not concerned. I’m even encouraged– and I’ve even been introduced to some highly qualified providers by such clients.
But less seldom, the client will say they want to handle the translation in-house. That’s a bit like a plumbing company saying they want to handle their own taxes. Disaster usually awaits.
The top variations… with my responses:
- “Well, we have an Italian lawyer on staff– she can do the translation.” Why in the heck would you waste a lawyer’s time on translation? Lawyers cost more per hour and we’re less efficient at linguistic work than actual, professional linguists.*
- “My assistant is from Juarez, and she speaks fluent Spanish.” That’s all fine and good, but is she trained in translation? More importantly, does her bilingual fluency also apply to legal vocabulary?
- “Our mailroom clerk, Timmy,** spent a semester in Paris, so we’re just going to have him do it.” Wow. Do you let him draft your pleadings because he took the LSAT once?
- “Oh, we’ll just use Google Translate. That should be fine.” Well, thanks for calling, but you should find somebody else to help you because it ain’t gonna be me. Oh, and call your malpractice carrier, because you’re way too fond of shortcuts.

Of course, I understand the budgetary pressures that litigants put on law firms, but translation is a critical piece of the Hague Service Convention puzzle. It should be done by a reputable, professional provider that is not only qualified in the linguistic field, but specifically well versed in legal translation. All those Latin terms of art like res ipsa loquitur and respondeat superior and sua sponte might easily translate into French or Italian, but how about Korean or Lithuanian? Even at that, “vicarious liability” and “joint & several” and “third-party” aren’t even familiar to most English speakers. How could they be familiar to a random translator?
This isn’t something to cheap out on, and it’s the surest way to prompt rejection of your request by foreign authorities. Just don’t.
* A few months ago, I hired a Brazilian attorney to fill a paralegal position until she gets her U.S. license. She’s awesome. Yes, she speaks fluent Portuguese. Yes, she has a professional grasp of legal terminology in both languages. But I would be wasting her talents and our firm’s resources to have her translate the documents we send to Brazil and Portugal (and occasionally Macao!).
** I was Timmy at one time, for the record. Only it wasn’t Paris. It was Caen, Normandy. I hold a Diplôme d’études françaises– “mention passable” (Diploma of French Studies– “woefully mediocre performance”). Along with five bucks at my local Roasterie, that will get me a cup of coffee. It doesn’t mean I’m qualified to translate legal documents.