ICLTE common mistakes
ICLTE · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Renders common-law or civil-law institutions by literal target-language words, such as translating common law as ordinary law, without checking whether the target court structure, precedent doctrine or prosecutor-judge roles match.
The candidate treats legal terms as ordinary vocabulary and assumes the target legal system has the same institutions.
What to do instead
Before translating, map the source institution to the target system. If no equivalent exists, use the accepted target term plus a short descriptive gloss at first occurrence and keep it consistent.
Uses a bilingual dictionary's first gloss for a term of art, such as rendering consideration as thoughtfulness or sentence as phrase, and never verifies it against the document type or jurisdiction.
Dictionary lookup is fast, and candidates mistake lexical equivalence for doctrinal equivalence.
What to do instead
Verify every term of art in at least two authoritative sources, including a bilingual legal dictionary and statute or case usage. Record jurisdiction and context in a personal glossary, then choose the target doctrine term or a gloss.
Neutralizes contract register by translating shall inconsistently as will or must, dropping hereinafter and whereas, and turning formal correspondence into conversational prose.
The candidate translates meaning word by word and does not profile the genre's register or legal effect.
What to do instead
Create a register profile for each text type, such as contract, letter or judgment. Preserve modality, performative verbs and formulaic connectors, and run a consistency check on shall, may and must.
Produces client correspondence that copies source syntax and buries the request, deadline or enclosures, or leaves bracketed placeholders unresolved.
The candidate focuses on sentence-level fidelity rather than target communication conventions and actionability.
What to do instead
Draft to target letter conventions: subject or reference line, one clear request, deadline, enclosures list and sign-off. Use a correspondence checklist and resolve or flag every placeholder.
Accepts a criminal-procedure or corporate filing assignment in an unfamiliar jurisdiction without disclosing limits or arranging a qualified reviewer.
Time pressure and fear of losing work lead candidates to overstate competence.
What to do instead
Run a competence check against the text's jurisdiction and field. Decline, narrow the scope, or team with a qualified legal reviewer, and document the arrangement.
Sends confidential case files through personal email or free machine-translation sites, keeps copies after delivery, and skips a conflict check for opposing parties.
Convenience and unclear workplace policies lead to ad hoc tools and poor file hygiene.
What to do instead
Use approved encrypted channels and client-approved machine translation only. Run a conflict screen before accepting, follow a retention and deletion policy, and log all transfers.
Submits raw machine-translation output or a first draft with no glossary, term-consistency check or second-reader review.
Machine-translation fluency creates false confidence, and deadlines crowd out quality assurance.
What to do instead
Build a project glossary and translation memory, require human post-editing of all legal terms, run term-consistency and full-file checks, and obtain a second-reader sign-off before delivery.
Treats all law as interchangeable: cites a regulation as a statute, assumes a directive has direct horizontal effect, or ignores commencement and transitional provisions.
The candidate memorizes labels without a hierarchy of sources or rules on temporal application.
What to do instead
Map the source hierarchy, including constitution, statute, regulation and case law. Check jurisdiction and date, and verify enabling provisions and commencement before translating the citation.
Changes legal effect by translating may as shall, shall as may, or best efforts as reasonable efforts, often to make the target read more naturally.
The candidate prioritizes fluency over modality and does not test the target sentence against the source obligation.
What to do instead
Use a modality matrix and preserve illocutionary force. Have a legal reviewer compare each obligation, permission and prohibition before sign-off.
Delivers without verifying numbers, dates, defined terms, cross-references and party names, or without checking that defined terms match the target definitions section.
Candidates read for fluency and skip non-prose accuracy checks under time pressure.
What to do instead
Run a separate accuracy pass with a checklist for figures, dates, names, defined terms and cross-references. Compare source and target side by side and record sign-off.