Every language professional working between Common Law and Civil Law countries knows the broad brushstrokes differences between both legal traditions. They all know, for example, that Common Law is judge-made law while Civil Law is codified or that Common Law is characterized by the doctrine of precedent while precedent is not (necessarily always) binding…
Read more
Every seasoned legal translator knows that understanding the differences between their source and target languages is the secret ingredient in the exceptional translation sauce. Experienced legal translators know what first, second, and third instance courts are called in both legal systems, why some but not all judges are called justices, why words like “magistrate” may…
Read more
I. A Little Recap Contrary to popular belief, literality is never the right choice in legal translation. While fidelity to source is indeed the guiding principle when translating all things law, fidelity is better achieved by other means, and none of those means involve word-for-word or literal translation. In my last post, I argued…
Read more
I. The Case for Plain Language In “The Public Speaks, Again: An International Study of Legal Communication” published in the University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review (2017), Law Professor Chris Trudeau and co-author Christine Cawthorne took a look at the public’s preferences for legal communication across five major English-speaking countries (the U.S., England, Canada,…
Read more
Two weeks ago, I published a post on using will and shall in dual language or translated contracts. The post caught the attention of fellow lawyers and translators alike, resulting in many interesting exchanges and debates. Some in my comments section, others via private message or email. I’m always open to such exchanges and grateful…
Read more