📋 Translation occupies a crucial place in international relations, whether involving contracts, judicial decisions, notarial acts, or administrative documents.
⚖️ With the rise of automatic translation tools — Google Translate, DeepL, solutions integrating artificial intelligence — the temptation is great, including for legal professionals, to use them to save time. But what happens when litigation arises from an erroneous translation?
💡 The question is now before the courts: do jurisdictions consider automatic translation as admissible? What difference in treatment between translation performed by a professional and translation generated by a machine?
🎯 This article examines the responses provided by jurisprudence and draws practical lessons for securing the production and use of legal translations.
⚖️ Legal translations: a matter of validity and responsibility
📖 In the legal domain, translation is not limited to a linguistic exercise: it conditions the validity of documents and the effectiveness of their application.
Documents concerned
International contracts: Divergences between linguistic versions can lead to interpretation disputes.
Notarial and administrative acts: Translation conditions their recognition by foreign authorities.
Court decisions and arbitral awards: Their international execution depends on the quality and fidelity of translation.
Identified risks
⚠️ Terminological error: Translating a legal term with an approximate equivalent can modify the legal effect of the text.
⚠️ Contested enforceability: When a contract exists in multiple languages, a court may dismiss a defective translation or impose a reference version.
⚠️ Professional liability: Poor translation can engage the responsibility of the translator or the entity that commissioned them, particularly in case of financial damage.
💡 Therefore, the question of translation reliability is central. This explains why courts carefully examine whether it was produced by a human translator or by an automatic tool.
📝 Jurisprudence regarding human translations
📖 In most legal systems, when litigation involves a translated document, courts first focus on whether the translation was performed by a qualified professional.
Recognition of certified translations
Common law jurisdictions: In the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, certified translators are often members of professional associations (ATA, ITI, ATIA, AUSIT). Their certified translations are recognized by courts and presumed faithful, unless proven otherwise.
Civil law systems: In Germany, France, Belgium, sworn translators appear on lists established by courts of appeal. Their certified translations serve for procedural documents, foreign court decisions (exequatur), or notarial acts filed in another country.
International practice: Major arbitration institutions require certified translations for documents in proceedings.
Professional translator responsibility
The human translator is subject to a reinforced duty of care: they must produce accurate, rigorous, and comprehensible translation.
In case of error causing damage (for example, a poorly rendered contractual clause that modifies party obligations), their civil liability can be engaged.
Courts have thus condemned translators or agencies for manifest errors, considered professional faults.
In international litigation
Enforcement proceedings: French and European courts regularly require certified translation of foreign decisions before executing them.
International arbitration: Regulations of major institutions (ICC, LCIA, SIAC) require that documents produced in a foreign language be translated by qualified professionals, under penalty of rejection.
💡 In practice, human translation is therefore admissible and enforceable before courts, but it directly engages the translator's responsibility. This recognition contrasts sharply with the situation of automatic translations, which courts consider as simple tools devoid of legal value.
🤖 Automatic translations and litigation
📋 The rise of automatic translation tools – Google Translate, DeepL, or more recently systems integrating generative artificial intelligence – has led some litigants and legal practitioners to use them in contentious contexts. But jurisprudence and professional standards are very clear: these translations cannot be assimilated to official legal translation.
Absence of probative value before courts
Courts consider automatic translations as simple comprehension aids, devoid of legal value.
Case law examples:
- In 2021, a Polish court found machine translation with post-editing inadmissible, due to incomplete revision and errors compromising text reliability.
- US federal courts have rejected machine-translated evidence, requiring certified translations for foreign language documents.
- The European Court of Justice requires professional translations for all submitted documents, explicitly excluding machine translation.
Consistently, when a party produces machine-generated translation in court, judges dismiss the document on grounds that it cannot be verified or certified.
Normative exclusion by international standards
ISO 17100: The reference standard for translation services expressly excludes automatic translations and their post-editing from its scope of application.
This means that under professional standards, raw machine translation cannot be considered qualified legal translation service.
Professional associations: Major translator organizations (ATA, ITI, BDÜ) maintain that machine translation cannot replace professional human translation for legal documents.
Reliability and confidentiality risks
Judicial institution testing: Several courts have tested automatic tools, notably in Canada and the EU, and found troubling terminological errors and inconsistencies in translating decisions.
Confidentiality violations: Use of free solutions (Google Translate, for example) has raised litigation regarding confidentiality and intellectual property, with some courts finding their use could violate contractual clauses.
Data security concerns: Cloud-based translation tools may store sensitive legal information on foreign servers, violating data protection regulations.
Impossibility of attributing responsibility
Unlike human translators, who are identifiable and subject to professional civil liability, software publishers disclaim all warranties.
In practice, the user remains solely responsible for consequences of inaccurate machine translation.
💡 Ultimately, jurisprudence and standards converge: automatic translations have no probative value in litigation, and their use exposes to legal risks (error, confidentiality, liability). They can only be considered preparatory tools, provided qualified human translation completes and validates them.
📖 Comparison and practical lessons
📋 Jurisprudence and professional standards establish a clear distinction between human and automatic translation.
Human translation
Admissible in court if certified or performed by qualified professional.
Benefits from reliability presumption, even if it can be contested in case of manifest error.
Identifiable responsibility: The translator (or agency) can be held civilly liable in case of fault.
Professional insurance: Qualified translators typically carry professional liability insurance.
Quality standards: Subject to professional standards and quality assurance processes.
Automatic translation
Not admissible as evidence: Considered a simple auxiliary tool without legal value.
No reliability presumption: Judges regularly reject these documents.
No attributable responsibility: Software publishers exclude all warranties, leaving users solely responsible.
Confidentiality risk: Use of free tools contradicting contractual obligations (e.g., non-disclosure clauses).
No quality assurance: No professional oversight or validation process.
Lessons for legal practitioners
🎯 For contracts, judgments, or procedural documents, only qualified human translation constitutes a guarantee of legal security.
⚠️ Exclusive recourse to automatic translation exposes to procedural risks (inadmissibility of documents) and contractual risks (confidentiality violations, errors engaging client responsibility).
💡 In international contexts, best practice consists of using automation only as preparatory tool and resorting to specialized translator for any version intended for official or contentious use.
🎯 How TransLex approaches the human vs. machine debate
At TransLex, we recognize that while technology continues to evolve, the fundamental requirements of legal translation remain unchanged: accuracy, reliability, and professional accountability.
📖 Our position on machine translation
Strategic tool use: We use advanced translation memory and terminology management systems to ensure consistency and efficiency.
Human oversight essential: All translations undergo complete human review and validation by qualified legal translators.
Professional responsibility: We maintain full professional liability for all delivered translations, something machine translation cannot provide.
📑 Technology-enhanced human translation
Best of both worlds: Combining technological efficiency with human expertise and accountability.
Quality assurance: Multi-stage review processes ensure accuracy that pure machine translation cannot achieve.
Risk mitigation: Professional oversight eliminates the legal risks associated with unverified machine translation.
⚖️ Client protection and compliance
Court admissibility: All our translations meet court requirements for certified, professional translation.
Confidentiality: Secure, on-premise systems protect client confidentiality unlike cloud-based free translation tools.
Professional standards: Full compliance with ISO 17100 and relevant professional association requirements.
📋 Emerging trends and future considerations
🔍 Evolving technology landscape
AI advancement: While AI translation continues improving, legal translation requires cultural and systemic knowledge that remains essentially human.
Hybrid approaches: Professional translators increasingly use AI as a starting point, with extensive human review and revision.
Regulatory response: Legal systems adapting to address AI-generated content in legal proceedings.
📖 Professional adaptation
Enhanced quality control: Translation profession developing new standards for AI-assisted translation.
Increased specialization: Growing emphasis on deep legal expertise as differentiator from machine capabilities.
Client education: Professionals helping clients understand risks and benefits of different translation approaches.
⚠️ Risk management evolution
Insurance considerations: Professional liability policies adapting to cover AI-assisted translation work.
Documentation requirements: Increased emphasis on translation process documentation for legal proceedings.
International harmonization: Growing convergence in international standards for legal translation admissibility.
❓ FAQ: Human vs. machine translation in litigation
1. Is automatic translation admissible before a court?
⚖️ No. Machine-generated translations (Google Translate, DeepL, etc.) are considered simple comprehension tools and have no probative value. They can be dismissed by judges.
2. What is the difference between certified translation and automatic translation?
📖 Certified translation, performed by a sworn translator, benefits from reliability presumption and can be produced in court. Automatic translation has no legal recognition.
3. Can human translators be held responsible in case of error?
✅ Yes. Professional translators are subject to reinforced duty of care. In case of error causing damage, their civil liability can be engaged.
4. Can automatic tools be used internally by law firms?
💡 They are used in practice, but should — in our view — only be used as preparatory aid. Their direct use for court documents or contracts exposes to confidentiality and accuracy risks.
5. Are there applicable standards for legal translation?
📋 Yes. ISO 17100 governs professional translation services, but expressly excludes automatic translations and their post-editing.
6. What about AI-assisted translation with human review?
🔍 Courts are beginning to address this hybrid approach. Key factors include extent of human involvement, translator qualifications, and ability to certify the final product's accuracy.
7. How do different jurisdictions view machine translation?
🌐 There's growing international consensus that machine translation alone is insufficient for legal proceedings, though specific requirements vary by jurisdiction and court level.
🎯 Conclusion
The distinction between human and automatic translation is now well established, both by courts and professional standards.
⚖️ Human translation, especially when certified, constitutes admissible evidence before courts and a guarantee of legal security. But it directly engages translator responsibility, held to high standards of rigor.
🤖 Automatic translation, conversely, remains an auxiliary tool devoid of probative value. Court decisions and international standards recall that it cannot replace professional expertise, and presents major risks regarding confidentiality and reliability.
📌 For lawyers, legal professionals, and institutions, the lesson is clear: legal translation cannot be delegated to machines alone. It must be entrusted to qualified translators, capable of assuming responsibility for their work and guaranteeing the precision required in contentious contexts.
💡 As legal practice becomes increasingly international and digital, the temptation to rely on machine translation will only grow. However, the fundamental requirements of legal translation — accuracy, accountability, and professional reliability — remain essentially human endeavors. The most effective approach combines technological efficiency with human expertise, ensuring both productivity and the legal security that international practice demands.
📖 The future of legal translation lies not in choosing between human and machine, but in optimizing their combination while maintaining the professional standards and accountability that legal practice requires.
