The short answer is that ChatGPT can assist with legal document translation, but it should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal translators. Legal translation requires compliance with privacy policy, jurisdictional knowledge and an understanding of complex legal terminology that artificial intelligence alone cannot consistently guarantee.

The Growing Use of AI in Legal Translation

The legal sector has rapidly adopted artificial intelligence for drafting, summarising and reviewing documents. Research examining AI-driven legal translations has found that tools such as ChatGPT can produce understandable translations and significantly reduce processing time. However, studies have also identified recurring issues including mistranslated legal terminology, inaccuracies in legal formulae and wording that may appear unusual or inappropriate within a legal context. These findings highlight the continuing need for human review by qualified legal linguists.

For multinational companies handling contracts, employment agreements, regulatory documents and court papers, the appeal of AI translation is clear. It offers speed, accessibility and low cost. Yet legal documents differ significantly from ordinary business correspondence.

Another important consideration is certification. In many legal, immigration, court and regulatory proceedings, a translated document must be accompanied by a certification confirming that the translation is a true and accurate representation of the original document. This certification can only be provided by a qualified human translator or translation provider who is prepared to sign a declaration of truth and accept responsibility for the accuracy of the translation. Artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT, cannot certify translations, sign declarations or provide the assurances required by courts, government authorities or professional bodies. Consequently, where a certified translation is required for official use, a human linguist remains essential.

Why Legal Translation Is Different

Legal language is highly specialised. Many legal terms have meanings that differ substantially from their everyday use. Furthermore, the same term may have different interpretations depending on the jurisdiction.

For example, concepts such as “consideration”, “equity”, “trust”, or “discharge” carry specific legal meanings in common law jurisdictions. Translating these concepts into another language often requires legal expertise rather than linguistic substitution alone. AI systems may recognise the words but fail to appreciate the legal consequences attached to them.

A minor translation error can alter contractual obligations, create ambiguity in court proceedings or lead to regulatory non-compliance. In legal matters, precision is essential.

Risk 1: Inaccurate Legal Terminology

One of the most significant risks associated with ChatGPT legal translation is terminology accuracy.

Academic analysis of AI-translated legal documents identified examples of mistranslated legal expressions and inaccuracies that could affect the interpretation of legal rights and obligations. Even when the overall translation appeared coherent, certain legal terms were rendered incorrectly or imprecisely.

Unlike professional legal translators, ChatGPT does not possess legal qualifications, practical experience or jurisdiction-specific legal training. It predicts language patterns rather than applying legal reasoning.

Consequently, translations may appear convincing while containing subtle but significant legal errors.

Risk 2: Jurisdiction-Specific Legal Concepts

Legal systems vary considerably across countries. A term used in English law may have no direct equivalent in Romanian, Polish, Spanish or German law.

Professional legal translators understand both the source and target legal systems. Their role involves identifying equivalent legal concepts and adapting terminology accordingly.

ChatGPT, however, may generate a literal translation without recognising that the legal concept itself differs between jurisdictions. This can create misunderstandings in contracts, litigation documents, immigration applications and regulatory submissions.

For cross-border legal matters, human expertise remains indispensable.

Risk 3: Confidentiality and Data Protection Concerns

Legal documents frequently contain confidential personal, financial and commercial information.

Professional translation providers operate under strict confidentiality agreements, secure data handling procedures and regulatory compliance frameworks.

When users upload legal documents into publicly accessible AI systems, questions arise regarding data processing, confidentiality and privacy obligations. Legal professionals and regulatory bodies have repeatedly highlighted concerns regarding the handling of sensitive client information within generative AI platforms.

For organisations handling sensitive legal matters, confidentiality considerations alone may make exclusive reliance on AI translation inappropriate.

Risk 4: Hallucinations and Fabricated Content

A well-documented limitation of large language models is their tendency to generate inaccurate or fabricated information, often referred to as “hallucinations”.

Within legal practice, regulators and professional bodies have repeatedly warned that AI-generated content must always be independently verified. Even sophisticated legal AI systems may occasionally produce incorrect statements or unsupported conclusions.

In translation work, this risk may result in omitted clauses, altered meanings or wording that was never present in the original document. Such errors can be difficult to detect without thorough review by a qualified translator.

When Can ChatGPT Be Useful?

Despite these risks, ChatGPT can still provide value within legal translation workflows.

It may assist with:

• Initial translation drafts.
• Document summaries.
• Multilingual communication support.
• Terminology research.
• Internal understanding of foreign-language documents.

Research indicates that AI can improve accessibility and help users understand complex legal materials more efficiently.

However, these uses should complement, rather than replace, professional legal translation services.

The Importance of Human Legal Translators

The most effective approach is often a hybrid model combining artificial intelligence with professional human expertise.

Qualified legal translators provide:

• Jurisdiction-specific legal knowledge.
• Terminology accuracy.
• Cultural and linguistic adaptation.
• Regulatory compliance.
• Confidentiality protection.
• Quality assurance and legal review.

Academic research examining AI legal translation consistently concludes that human post-editing and subject-matter expertise remain essential components of reliable legal translation.

Conclusion

ChatGPT can translate legal documents, but it cannot currently replace professional legal translators. While AI offers speed and convenience, legal translation involves far more than converting words from one language to another. Accuracy, legal context, confidentiality and jurisdictional understanding are fundamental requirements that demand human expertise. Artificial intelligence can support the process, but responsibility for legal accuracy should always rest with experienced legal linguists.

At IMD Translation, we combine advanced translation technology with specialist human expertise to deliver accurate, confidential and legally reliable translations for individuals, businesses and legal professionals worldwide.

Whether you require a professionally translated contract, commercial invoice, Certificate of Origin, export agreement, customs document or other international trade documentation, IMD Translation offers both a secure translation platform and specialist human translation services tailored to the needs of businesses, solicitors and international traders.

Learn more about our legal translation services on IMD Translation official website and try our LEGALTRANSALTION.AI machine translation.

The Nature of Legal Language

Legal language operates within strict frameworks of terminology, structure, and jurisdiction-specific meaning. Unlike general content, legal texts rely on precise definitions, contextual interpretation, and enforceable wording. Even minor linguistic deviations can alter obligations, liabilities, or rights.

Academic research highlights that machine translation struggles to replicate this precision. A study examining Arabic–English legal translation found that lexical errors accounted for over 43% of issues, while legal register errors represented more than 30%, demonstrating consistent inaccuracies in terminology and structure. These findings confirm that machine-generated outputs may appear linguistically correct but fail to meet the technical and doctrinal standards required in legal systems.

Error Rates and Structural Limitations in Official Use

Recent industry and academic evaluations show that machine translation systems frequently produce critical errors in legal contexts. One study[KT1]  reported that 38% of machine-translated legal documents contained serious errors, including mistranslated clauses and omitted obligations.

These errors are not merely linguistic. They directly affect:

• Contract enforceability
• Compliance with statutory requirements
• Interpretation of rights and obligations

Neural machine translation systems, while advanced, still rely on probabilistic language modelling rather than legal reasoning. As a result, they often fail to interpret:

• Jurisdiction-specific legal concepts
• Context-dependent terminology
• Cross-references within statutes and contracts

This structural limitation demonstrates why machine translation cannot independently meet the standards required for official use, court submissions, or certified translations.

Case Study Evidence: Financial and Legal Consequences

The risks associated with translation inaccuracies are not theoretical. Real-world cases demonstrate substantial financial and legal consequences.

One international arbitration case involving Ecuador resulted in liability exceeding $2 billion, with translation errors reportedly influencing the tribunal’s interpretation of legal documents.

Similarly, mistranslation in technical documentation led to medical errors in surgical procedures, generating multi-million-pound liabilities and legal claims.

These examples illustrate that inaccurate translation can:

• Distort judicial reasoning
• Influence case outcomes
• Create financial exposure
• Damage institutional credibility

In legal proceedings, translation is often treated as evidence, meaning inaccuracies may be challenged or may directly affect enforceability in court.

Risks in Court and Immigration Contexts

Machine translation presents particular risks in high-stakes legal environments such as immigration law and court proceedings.

Research shows that automated tools may:

• Reverse sentence meaning
• Introduce unintended subjects
• Misinterpret legal statements

In one documented example, machine translation altered first-person testimony into plural statements, affecting the coherence of asylum claims and creating evidentiary inconsistencies.

Such errors can undermine credibility and lead to adverse legal outcomes. In legal practice, consistency and accuracy across documents are essential, and even minor discrepancies may be interpreted as contradictions.

Ethical, Confidentiality, and Data Protection Concerns

Beyond linguistic accuracy, machine translation introduces ethical and regulatory risks. Academic research identifies several concerns:

• Data privacy violations, where confidential documents are uploaded to external systems
• Bias and discrimination, embedded within training datasets
• Unclear liability, when errors result in legal consequences

Many publicly available translation tools retain user input for system training purposes. In legal contexts, this raises serious concerns regarding:

• Client confidentiality
• Legal privilege
• Compliance with data protection regulations

For law firms and corporate clients, such risks are incompatible with professional obligations.

The Limitations of Automation in Legal Contexts

While machine translation offers efficiency, its limitations are well documented. Studies comparing human and AI translation consistently demonstrate that human translators outperform machines in legal accuracy and contextual interpretation.

Machine translation systems lack:

• Legal training and expertise
• Understanding of jurisdictional nuance
• Ability to interpret intent and context

As a result, automated tools may be suitable for preliminary understanding but not for official, certified, or legally binding documents.

Implications for Professional Translation Services

For organisations such as IMD Translation, these findings reinforce the necessity of professional, human-led translation processes. Effective legal translation requires:

• Subject-matter expertise in law
• Knowledge of multiple legal systems
• Terminological consistency
• Rigorous quality assurance

Machine translation may assist in document review or internal workflows, but it cannot replace certified legal translation services where accuracy, compliance, and confidentiality are required.

Besides human translation, IMD Translation came with a solution designed with Solicitors in Mind: LegalTranslation.ai:

• Free to use – with no limits or hidden costs 
• Confidential by design – no data retention, ever 
• Built for legal work – supporting most major languages 
• Seamlessly upgradable – escalate to a professional human legal translation with one click 

Whether you’re preparing bundles, verifying foreign correspondence, or clarifying evidence — it’s now easier (and safer) than ever to get the initial translation you need. 

Conclusion

For legal professionals, businesses, and individuals dealing with cross-border matters, reliance on machine translation alone is not a viable option. The consequences—ranging from contractual disputes to multi-million-pound liabilities—demonstrate the necessity of accurate, human-led translation.

For IMD Translation, maintaining professional standards in legal translation is not optional. It is a required tool for ensuring precision, protecting clients, and supporting enforceable outcomes in an increasingly globalised legal environment.

Background

The controversy began when Siddaramaiah, Chief Minister of the Indian state of Karnataka, posted a condolence message in Kannada on his social-media accounts, mourning the death of veteran actress B. Saroja Devi. The post was intended to express respect and grief for the actress’s passing. However, when viewed by some users whose language settings were English, the auto-translation feature rendered the post incorrectly — implying that Siddaramaiah himself had passed away.

According to the erroneous translation that circulated: “Chief Minister Siddaramaiah passed away yesterday …” — a statement that was factually false and misleading.

The mistranslation triggered immediate backlash. Siddaramaiah’s office formally complained to Meta, noting that the translation tool’s mistake was “distorting facts and misleading users.”

Meta’s Response

Within days, Meta issued a public apology. A spokesperson admitted that the error had arisen due to a fault with its automatic Kannada-to-English translation system and confirmed that the problem had been resolved.

In the apology, Meta stated: “We fixed an issue that briefly caused this inaccurate Kannada translation. We apologise that this happened.”

Nevertheless, the episode sparked widespread concern about the reliability of machine translation — particularly for regional languages with complex syntax or cultural nuance, and especially when used in contexts involving official communication or public figures.

Why This Error Matters

Several factors made this particular mistranslation especially problematic:

• Official communication: The post was from a constitutional authority, meaning many readers might uncritically accept the translated version as accurate.
• Public trust and reputation: A false death announcement — even temporary — can damage credibility, sow confusion and provoke fear or panic among the public and supporters.
• Language complexity: The incident highlights the difficulty of rendering accurate meaning, tone and context when automatically translating from less commonly supported languages such as Kannada into English.
• Lack of transparency for users: Many recipients may not realise the English text is machine-generated rather than human-translated, or that the original message remains available only in the native language.

It is for reasons like these that translation cannot be treated lightly, especially for sensitive or official content.

Lessons for Translation Quality — Why Human Expertise Still Matters

The Meta incident reinforces several key principles that professional translation services must uphold.

1. Context and cultural nuance matter.

A simple literal translation may not preserve the original intent, tone or meaning. Automated translations often miss cultural references, idiomatic expressions or context-dependent phrasing that human translators do not.

2. Certified and experienced translators are essential.

Where public communication, reputational concerns or legal sensitivities are involved, it is crucial to rely on trained translators — not merely bilingual individuals or unverified automation. Human translators bring subject-matter awareness, linguistic sensitivity and precision that machine systems currently lack.

3. Quality assurance and review are non-negotiable.

Professional translations typically go through multiple stages — translation, editing, proofreading — to catch errors, check consistency and ensure tone. Automated tools offer no equivalent “peer review.”

4. Transparency and accountability.

Clients must know who worked on a translation and have confidence in the workflow. With machine translations, there is no visibility on the model or its limitations; with human translators, accountability is clear.

5. Data security and confidentiality (where relevant).

Especially for sensitive content — whether legal, governmental, or personal — translation must be handled under strict confidentiality protocols, which automated tools may not guarantee.

Broader Implications for Multilingual Communication

The Meta case is not simply a tech-industry glitch; it is a warning for businesses, governments, non-profits and individuals who rely on machine translation for cross-linguistic communication.

• Global platforms and social media tools have grown in reach, but their support for regional and less widely spoken languages often remains patchy.
• Mistranslations can distort meaning, damage reputation, or — as this case shows — propagate misinformation.
• For organisations with international stakeholders, accurate translation is critical to maintain credibility, trust and legal compliance.
• Linguistic and cultural competence cannot be outsourced reliably to AI alone: human expertise remains indispensable.

Conclusion

The erroneous translation of a condolence post from Kannada to English by Meta, which falsely announced the death of a public figure, is an instructive example of how machine translation — especially when used recklessly — can lead to serious misunderstanding.

As businesses and institutions increasingly operate across linguistic and cultural boundaries, the demand for accurate, context-aware, human-led translation will only grow.

At IMD Translation, we understand these stakes. We guarantee that every project is handled by skilled linguists, that meaningful quality assurance safeguards are in place, and that translations are tailored carefully to both the language and the cultural context of the target audience.

Unfortunately, many firms still turn to free online tools like Google Translate or ChatGPT for initial drafts—often unaware of the risks to client confidentiality and compliance with professional obligations. 

That’s why we’re excited to launch LegalTranslation.ai — a free, confidential machine translation tool built specifically for the legal profession. 

What Makes It Different? 

Unlike general-purpose translation engines, LegalTranslation.ai does not store, retain, or share your data. The platform is powered by Microsoft’s secure machine translation technology — but unlike consumer-facing tools, it’s wrapped in a framework that respects your clients’ confidentiality and your regulatory obligations. 

With LegalTranslation.ai you can: 

• Translate foreign-language text in seconds 

• Stay compliant with SRA duty of confidentiality and GDPR  

• Avoid sending client data to public clouds or third-party AI tools 

• Request human legal translation at the click of a button when needed 

Why Not Google Translate or ChatGPT? 

They’re convenient — but not safe for solicitors. 

Most free translation tools store user input, sometimes indefinitely, to improve their services. That may be fine for the average user, but as regulated professionals we must ensure we do not compromise our clients’ personal or commercially sensitive data. 

Using those tools for legal documents — even as a “first draft” — can put your firm at risk of breaching the SRA Code of Conduct, GDPR and data processing obligations. 

Designed with Solicitors in Mind

LegalTranslation.ai is: 

• Free to use – with no limits or hidden costs 

• Confidential by design – no data retention, ever 

• Built for legal work – supporting most major languages 

• Seamlessly upgradable – escalate to a professional human legal translation with one click 

Whether you’re preparing bundles, verifying foreign correspondence, or clarifying evidence — it’s now easier (and safer) than ever to get the initial translation you need. 

Bookmark It, Use It, Share It 

We’ve created this tool to support legal professionals like you — and we hope it becomes your go-to resource, just like Google Translate, but built for our profession. 

Visit www.legaltranslation.ai, try it out, and consider adding it to your bookmarks or firm’s internal toolkit.

If you’d like to know more about how we keep your data secure — or if you need certified or official translations — our expert human team is always here to help. 

Let us know what you think, and feel free to forward this to a colleague who still uses Google Translate for legal work.

…however they can also be as low as 55% accurate.

Why such a difference?

Simple. Accuracy depends on how much data is available in the source and target languages. This data is then used to train a machine. This means that using a machine to translate between English and Spanish might well be able to hit 90% accuracy, yet translating between Chinese and Zulu is much more inaccurate.

Are the machines taking over?

We are probably a little while away from Skynet taking over. Machine translation (MT) has actually been around for longer than most people realise, beginning way back in the 1930s with Georges Artsrouni filing and receiving the first patent for a mechanical translator in France in 1933, and Petr Troyanskii filing and receiving a similar, albeit more detailed, patent in the USSR in 1935.

Momentum was really gained after the Second World War, predominantly by the USSR and USA up until the 1970s, at which point the US took a bit of a back seat for a while, with Canada, France, Germany, and the UK continuing the research.  Strides were made in the 2000s, and since the 2010s machine translated output has become much more reliable – albeit nowhere near perfect.

Throughout all this time, different approaches to machine translation have been researched and experimented with, each reliant on the technical prowess of the time. From the initial basic rules-based approach, through the approaches of statistical methods, to modern deep learning approach of neural-MT.

Amazing – but just how good is 90% accuracy anyway?

It is often said that when asked about translations, a linguist will always answer ‘it depends on context’. Here is no different.

90% accuracy may be great if you’re on holiday and trying to order lunch or ask directions back to your hotel. The grammar doesn’t need to be perfect. Saying ‘cow’ rather than ‘beef’ doesn’t matter so much as context fills in the gaps and you’re able to enjoy a meal before finding your way safely back to bed.

But.

If you’re trying to translate marketing material and slogans, you need to understand your audience and culture. Machines unfortunately don’t yet understand that.

If you’re translating colloquialisms and acronyms, you need to understand the local culture and context. Machines unfortunately don’t yet get that.

If you’re translating medical documents with complex sentence structures, acronyms, and vocabulary, you need a deep medical and linguistic understanding. Machines unfortunately don’t yet have that.

If you are translating important legal documents, such as contracts and court evidence, you need to ensure accuracy across all points. Is 90% accurate ‘good enough’?

Would you buy from a company that alienates every tenth customer?

Would you read a novel in which every tenth page is complete gobbledygook?

Would you go to a doctor who misdiagnoses illnesses every tenth time?

Would you use a solicitor who drafts contracts incorrectly for every tenth client?

Do you really think 90% right is always acceptable in any context?

A translation that is only 90% accurate could still contain significant errors that would have serious consequences: court evidence that could end one in prison; a contract that offers no security or guarantees; a medical report that doesn’t specify a diagnosis or prognosis…

Machines and AI are indeed developing rapidly, but they have been for decades already. It is human expertise and skill that ultimately produce accurate and reliable translations. Especially in complex and important documents.

At IMD Translation, we pride ourselves on our deep understanding of language, law, and the professional services. Because in legal matters, language matters.

Get in touch at info@imdtranslation.co.uk or 03309121530

Such improvements in translation AI, known as ‘neural machine translation’, now mean that these networks can be ‘trained’ in a specific domain, such as Law or Medicine. This improves accuracy and generates far better results more quickly than the machine translation of old. Clearly, a boon when life and limb are on the line.

What machines can’t do (until they learn every possible story, tale, idiom and joke), is translate culture-specific references. One example, highlighted in the Economist, is of a Madrid-based legal translator who caught a crucial distinction in a criminal law translation. The Spanish word “Dolo” was translated as “wilful misconduct” – application of the law in question turned on the word “wilful”. So, when “Dolo” became “Malice”, the omission could have had grave consequences. Thankfully, in this case, disaster was narrowly averted. 

It’s not hard to see how much of a simple legal argument might be translated without too much controversy by a machine, but it is the contentious 5% of the language, on the interpretation of which cases turn in a single language, that causes problems only a human can remedy – and not just any human: in this instance it must be an expert legal translator with fluency in Spanish and English.

What does this mean for translators?

While most of the narrative around machine translation pits humans against machines, the reality is that the future of translation is a hybrid. For years now translators have utilised ‘translation memory’ through the use of CAT tools (that is ‘computer aided translation’, not furry feline), wherein any repeated segments of translation are ‘remembered’ during the translation – for instance particular set phrases that repeat throughout a document – thereby helping speed up the translation of a document. The material that is repeated can be automatically translated can and will be by the translation memory, and for non-specialised and non-contentious texts, neural machine translation my be applied through a ‘MTPE’ (Machine Translation Post Editing) process, wherein a computer has a first stab at the translation, and a human specialist edits the computer output to bring it up to an acceptable standard. In years to come, as machines ‘learn’ more and become more adept at machine translation we may see increasing instances of it with material requiring a human touch continuing to be handled by specialists in their field. 

We’re still some way off a day where machines take over completely, thankfully. Perhaps it is only when machines make the law that they will also be able to translate it. With the news that San Francisco has now approved a law allowing Robots to use deadly force, this may be a dark day indeed! (*checks for potential references to any ‘Skynet’ programme*)

We only recommend using machine translation for ‘gist’ purposes – to get the feel for the content of a document and help decide whether a document is pertinent to a case and would need translating properly by a human specilaise. Never would we suggest ustilising machine translation for documents that require submission to an authority such as a court. Nevertheless, if gist and for internal purposes is what you need, and budget is constrained, we can help you with MTPE.

If, however, it is the services of an expert human legal translator that are needed, then you really are in the right place! IMD Translation was formed by solicitors for solicitors. Across all legal sectors and professional services all of our translators have in-depth legal knowledge and understand how important legal and linguistic accuracy are to you, your case, and your client. 

Please get in touch with us today to discuss any needs you may have.