Does AI spell the end of the legal translator? With a single click, AI can now translate entire contracts, court decisions, and legal briefs. But does this mean legal translators are becoming obsolete? Hardly! Human translators add value to the translation process, including through judicious and critical use of AI. In this post, we will briefly analyze an AI generated legal translation, noting some drawbacks with it and their solutions. Analysis The following is an excerpt from an AI generated translation of a c. 200-word decision of the Enforcement and Collection Office: “To the extent that there are attached funds, assets, or rights, and subject to all applicable laws (including, subject to the priority orders of creditors1 established by law), by virtue of the attachment order, and in accordance with Section 47 of the Enforcement and Collection Law, 5727-1967 (hereinafter: “the Law”2), I hereby order the holder/third party mentioned above to transfer the attached funds to the Enforcement Office,3 up to the amount of all attachments imposed at their4 institution in enforcement files,3along with a list of valid attachments imposed at their4 institution on the debtor’s assets in the enforcement files. …. the holder/third party shall transfer the attached funds to this file together with a list of attachments for distribution by the Enforcement Office secretariat,5 or petition for instructions.” The main issues that caught my attention in this translation and their solution are as follows: 1. “Priority orders of creditors” is an unnatural way of expressing this concept. Upon further querying, AI agreed that “order of priority of creditors” or “creditor priority” would be a more natural alternative. 2. “the Law” – When expressing defined terms, the convention is to place the quotation marks around the defined term only and not the definite article as well. Accordingly, this should be changed to “(the “Law”).” 3. Commas – The commas indicated are out of place since the clauses they proceed are essential clauses. Upon further querying, AI agreed with this analysis stating “No, I don’t think commas are needed in those instances. The clauses are indeed essential to the meaning and closely tied to what precedes them.” 4. “Their” – This pronoun does not agree with the singular antecedent “holder/third party.” In formal writing, such as this, it should be changed to “it.” 5. “Enforcement Office secretariat” is an unnatural way of expressing this concept. Upon further querying, AI agreed that “clerk of the Enforcement Office” would be a more natural alternative. Conclusion Yes, AI is a great tool for generating translations. However, it does not spell the end of the legal translator, and skilled and knowledgeable humans are still required to evaluate and improve AI’s outputs in order to produce the best quality work possible for their clients.
