Websites in professional industries such as law rely on the trust, credibility and reputation built by the company in question. More often than not, a potential customer’s first impression of a law firm is the law firm’s website.

For this very reason, the way that the information is displayed and delivered on a law firm’s website is of paramount importance. Translation is key to getting the branded messaging across to the target audience effectively and an accurate and localized translation of the website’s content is a key part of this task.

There are countless examples of embarrassing website translation mistakes, some of which would leave the most stoic lawyer red in the face, but these mistakes are easily avoided by using the right tools and translation services. We’ve highlighted four of the most common website translation mistakes made by law firms and provided useful tips for avoiding these pitfalls

1. Using machine translation for multilingual versions of your law firm’s website or landing pages

Whilst it may be tempting to utilize the immediacy and low cost of machine translation to create your law firm’s multilingual website, the poor quality of these translations may be detrimental to your firm’s credibility and leave your potential overseas’ clients with a bad first impression.

Of course, translated landing pages will ensure the website is visible and targeted to a wider audience, but if that audience sees mistakes in grammar, syntax and word choice in the translation, then it would be difficult to convert them into a paying customer.

The solution to this really common mistake is a simple one, and it comes in the form of hiring a professional legal translation firm that employs legal translation experts who also have website translation experience and are able to understand the nuances of legal translation as well as how to effectively market legal services to the target audience.

2. Forgetting to translate email and contact us forms

So, your law firm’s website is ready to launch and contains perfectly translated copy for each of your target markets, but what about next steps in the conversion funnel?

Take this conversion path for example:

• A potential client who only speaks Spanish is looking for legal assistance with divorce proceedings.
• She visits the site and is impressed with the way the website is translated in a professional manner.
• She clicks ‘contact us’ and sends a short message asking for more information from your specialist divorce lawyer.
• The automated response she receives is in English and she cannot understand the next steps required of her.
• She leaves the website to look for another legal firm to handle her case.

Particularly with sensitive legal matters, it is important to have the entire user journey translated properly to ensure that no potential client leads are lost.

3. Failing to translate lawyer profiles

The majority of website searches that lead visitors to your law firm’s website will be by potential clients searching for a lawyer to potentially work on their case.

These visitors have often been given a recommendation by a friend, family or work associate. In order not to waste this warm lead arriving at the website, ensuring that your lawyer’s profiles and descriptions are translated will improve both conversion and decrease bounce and exit rates on your site.

Monitoring Google Analytics is a simple way to see which lawyer profiles are generating inbound traffic and this information can be used as a benchmark to decide the order and priority in which these pages are translated, to have the maximum impact in the shortest time – a significant quick win for your law website.

4. Email Marketing and Newsletters – all important for getting your localized message across

If your law firm uses email marketing or newsletters as a channel to communicate with clients and prospects, then translation will be important to consider when spending time on these marketing assets.

Email marketing and newsletters are an example where audience-specific translated content should be considered. If, for example a market you’re looking to target is the Spanish-speaking community, then it makes sense to send out translated newsletters and email campaigns to coincide with national holidays like Cinco de Mayo, Día de Acción de Gracias and similar.

This will demonstrate a clear understanding of the audience you’re catering to, and this relates back to establishing trust, credibility and confidence in your law firm’s ability to tailor your services to your client’s background and specific needs.

By Shanna Bergman

We previously explored the issue of who should pay for legal translation services in November of 2011, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan LTD. 633 F.3d 1218 (9^th Cir. 2011) that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal translation costs to Kan Pacific, including document translation costs (from Japanese to English) as well as interpretation costs.  The Court of Appeals interpreted 28 U.S.C. §1920(6) (which grants courts discretion to award costs for the compensation of interpreters) to include document translation as part of the costs to be awarded at the conclusion of litigation. The Court of Appeals stressed in their opinion that Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure includes “decided preference for the award of costs to the prevailing party and thus, the prevailing party should be awarded costs for services required to interpret either live speech or written documents into a familiar language so long as interpretation of the items is necessary to the litigation”.  Taniguchi appealed and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to hear the case, which could have a big impact on who pays for legal translations.

The case was argued before the Court on February 21, 2012 and the decision came down on May 21, 2012.  The decision was highly anticipated in the litigation world as, amongst other things, a decision that “interpretation” is the same thing as written legal translation in the context of reimbursement for these expenses, could potentially shift the entire “cost-benefit” analysis for commencing litigation in the first place.

The Supreme Court has now held that “because the ordinary meaning of interpreter is someone who translates orally from one language to another, the category ‘compensation of interpreters’ in §1920(6) does not include the cost of document translation”.  Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan LTD, 566 U.S.____(2012)  In its opinion, the Court stated that “when a term is not defined in a statute (as is the case here) we give the term its ordinary meaning” Id.   The Court turned to several authorities to determine the ordinary meaning of “interpreter”.  They cite the following:  American Heritage Dictionary defined the term as one who translates orally from one language to another; Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary defined the word “interpret” as to “translate orally”; Random House Dictionary defined “interpret” as to translate what is said in a foreign language; Oxford Dictionary defined interpreter as one who translates languages (breaking it down into two sections)…one who’s office it is to translate the words of persons speaking different languages, esp. orally in their presence; Black’s Law Dictionary defines “interpreter” as a person sworn at trial to interpret the evidence of a foreigner to the court and “interpret” as to translate orally from one tongue to another. Id.   In addition, the Court noted that the statutory context of the Court Interpreters Act (noting that Congress enacted §1920 as part of the Court Interpreters Act) is a program to facilitate the use of qualified interpreters in judicial proceedings before the courts of the United States in any action, civil or criminal, where a witness or party speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language. The opinion goes on to state that the statute also gives very precise instructions for interpretation (i.e. simultaneous interpretation, consecutive mode etc.).  The Court stated that given these specificities, there is strong evidence that “Congress was dealing only with oral translation in the Court Interpreters Act” and nothing to do with the legal translation of documents.

With respect to Rule 54, the Court notes that “the discretion granted by Rule 54(d) is not a power to evade the specific categories of costs set forth by Congress…thus provides no sound basis for casting aside the ordinary meaning of the various items enumerated in the costs statute, including the ordinary meaning of ‘interpreter’” Id.

As an interesting final note, and one to perhaps consider as we move forward, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg notes in her dissent that  “Some translation tasks do not fall neatly into one category or another” (i.e. legal document translation or interpreter). She states that sometimes an interpreter “may be called upon to sight translate a written document” (i.e. convey the substance of a written document orally). Id.

So essentially, the Supreme Court has decided to maintain the status quo of reimbursement for interpretation services but not for document translation services related to litigation. Those entering into commercial or patent litigation which may require extensive legal translation of foreign-language documents need not fear paying a hefty translation bill should they lose their case, though it is still a good idea to factor in the legal translation costs they will assume, which are often far higher than originally anticipated.

(This blog is a truncated version of an article that ran in the New York Law Journal last month.)

At most law firms, when a legal document translation provider is needed, the usual course of action is to request estimates from several translation companies and pick the cheapest one.

This is not unreasonable. Clients are more cost-conscious than ever and less likely to obtain a legal translation that comes with a hefty price tag. Unfortunately, the cost of fixing a poor translation is much higher than obtaining an accurate translation, to begin with, not to mention spillover costs in embarrassment or even potential damage to your case.

Here are 7 factors to consider when selecting a legal translation provider:

1. Quality

Quality is the most important factor. But how can you determine if a company provides quality legal document translations? The translation is not a science, and there is no such thing as a perfectly legal document translation. But it makes sense to find out more about a company’s quality control procedures, how they select and vet their translators, and how they proofread completed translations. You may want to ask a legal translation provider if their translators are accredited by the American Translator’s Association (ATA) or similar organizations? What is their process for dealing with translation errors? If a translation company can’t answer these questions to your satisfaction, you should be wary of trusting them with your documents.

2. ISO Certification

While ISO certification does not guarantee accurate legal translations, it does indicate that the translation company has a quality management system in place and documented processes for quality assurance. While not foolproof, it is certainly better than no certification. Since many established translation companies have achieved ISO certification, you are better off relying on one that does.

3. Legal Specialization

It makes sense to choose a company that specializes in legal document translation. Even if you only need to translate several documents, you are better off working with a provider that is familiar with litigation and the discovery process and can provide legal support services in addition to document translation (i.e., interpretation for depositions, foreign-language document review, etc.). Ask about the qualifications of their legal translators, and how many years they have been translating legal documents. Also, ask about proofreading. If your case deals with the technical subject matter, then make sure the translators they would assign have a relevant educational and experiential background.

4. Reputation

How long has the agency been around? Has anyone in your firm used them in the past? You should not hesitate to ask for references to projects of similar scope and subject matter.

5. Responsiveness

It’s worth inquiring how long estimates typically take. Most translation companies can provide an estimate in an hour or two. But some—particularly the largest companies—can take much longer. Do they provide after-hours or weekend service? If translation requests often arrive at your desk after 6 pm, you should not select a translation provider that only responds to new requests between 9-5.

6. Size

Bigger does not necessarily mean better. At the largest companies, chances are you will deal with a different project manager and translator for each project, and the quality of the translation work may vary from project to project. You may wait longer to obtain a quote, receive impersonal service, and get the impression that your business is low on the priority list if you are not a big client. On the other hand, it makes sense to work with a company that is big enough to handle the various languages and technical specialties you may require at the necessary turnaround time. As in so many things, the “Goldilocks Rule” applies: pick a translation company that isn’t too small or too big, but “just right” for your needs.

7. Price

Price is always a concern, and clients are more sensitive than ever in this economy. While quality—not price—ideally should be the overriding factor, once you have established that the translation companies you are considering have appropriate qualifications, it certainly makes sense to compare fees. Just make sure you compare apples to apples. Many translation companies offer low rates that only include the cost of the translation– proofreading and formatting are extra. Their per-word rates may be lower than other services, but the final bill ends up much higher. Make sure to ask what the translation estimate includes, and if it is “all-inclusive.” If it isn’t, then ask for an estimate of the additional charges.

The costs of legal translation incurred during litigation can be enormous. Document translation fees for a complex, cross-border litigation case can easily reach hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Who should pay for translation services, and should the winner be reimbursed for the huge expense?

The Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue during its 2011-2012 term, which began last month. On the court’s docket is  Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, LTD, 633 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) a case which will impact to what extent courts can award the winning party money spent for legal translation services during the course of litigation.

The case began when professional Japanese baseball player Kouichi Taniguchi fell through a wooden deck on Kan Pacific property and tore several ligaments. The injuries prevented him from playing, and he was forced to breach his contract. He sued Kan Pacific for negligence in order to cover lost wages, but ultimately lost the case. In addition, he was ordered to pay $5517.20 in legal translation costs to Kan Pacific for documents translated from Japanese to English. Taniguchi appealed.

In deciding Taniguchi, The 6th circuit had relied on U.S. Code § 1920. Title 28,1920 states that a court may reimburse the winning party for certain expenses like filing and printing transcripts, and also for certain interpretation services. The court relied on a dictionary definition of “interpret” which included “to translate into intelligible language.” Based on this, the court determined that “translation” and “interpretation” are interchangeable and that translation services should also be covered. Now as most translation companies will tell you, “interpretation” and “translation” are not synonymous. Translation involves written text; interpretation is oral and involves a speech or phone conversation. On appeal, The 7th circuit argued that this expansive definition of “interpreter” went too far, and split on allowing litigation costs like document translation to be included on the list of recoverable costs.

It was up to the 9th circuit to decide, and it ultimately agreed with the 6th circuit that courts could award the winning party the costs of legal document translation. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to make the final decision which could have far-reaching implications. The same reasoning that led the 9th circuit to decide in favor of reimbursing translation costs could impact e-discovery and a range of other litigation expenses. The cost-benefit analysis of entering into litigation could shift considerably given the potential reimbursement demands. Parties might agree to limit the amount of discovery and translation they do to hedge against paying the full costs later on, and the discovery process could become much more limited for certain cases. We’ll have more to say when this case is decided.