Full service provision, but no mind-reading
Linguistic, legalistic, but not mystic
At the heart of every large, Belgian organisation, there lie three documents: the articles of association, the bylaws and the works regulations. The articles of association set out the constitution of the company and reflect its relations both externally, with its outside partners, and internally, with its shareholders. The bylaws regulate the minutiae of its internal operations. The works regulations regulate matters between management and the organisation’s workforce.
A client of mine approached me some while ago to translate its articles of association and its bylaws into another language. This I gladly agreed to do and embarked upon the task. It soon became apparent to me that both documents were peppered with sloppy drafting, logical contradictions and simply bizarre provisions, so that I contacted the client again to ask them more or less: “Are they serious?”
They replied that the documents as submitted for translation had been reviewed by legal counsel and therefore there was nothing to reproach them with. When I illustrated the matters on which I felt reproach was indeed warranted, they engaged me under a work extension to perform my own review of the provisions.
There ensued a detailed analysis of the documents under listing of the areas that I felt were inadequate (I’m a translator and also a qualified attorney at law). In short, the message that seemed to be subliminal throughout the documents was “You know what we mean.” I pointed out that the whole purpose of these documents is to set out in clear terms exactly what is meant, without requiring some kind of mind-reading exercise on the part of the reader. Still less the court.
In the end, only a fraction of the points that I had raised were reacted to, simply because time did not permit for a full overhaul of both documents given the state in which they were: which was already purportedly as the result of a “complete overhaul.”
The bill was prepared; the work submitted; it was paid for; and that was that.
Some time later, the works regulations were submitted to me for similar treatment. There had been a number of amendments made to the previous version and could I kindly incorporate these into the existing translation? No problem. However, soon after embarking on the work, I noticed that the existing translation did not reflect what was in the supposedly unchanged part of the text submitted for translation, and I raised an inquiry. Did they have a tracked changes version showing what amendments had been made?
No they did not. The entire amendments had been incorporated into the existing source document but no record had been kept of what those changes were. The document extended to a large number of pages and it simply was not practical to trawl the document to find the changes. I said I could do this task for them but it would cost them an inordinate amount of money and perhaps they had a clerk somewhere in their office sitting with little to do who could do the task for us at minimal cost to them. This they agreed to do and they returned the documents in due course for me only to find that the meticulous comparison, for which I had even supplied the methodology, had simply not been properly done. I wrote to them and proposed an executive decision: I would translate the current document as is, regardless of whatever changes had been made to it, entirely from scratch: would they agree? They agreed. It was done. It was billed. They paid the bill.
I added a paragraph when returning the document that, if they wished, I could do an in-house seminar on the use and practicality of tracked changes in MS Word, as a time and cost-saving exercise. It was noted.
I have just completed the re-translation of the articles of association and bylaws of the organisation. When the version on which I had raised such extensive objections from a legal point of view was presented for approval to the organisation’s general meeting, guess what. They rejected it and homed in on many of the points that I had already raised with the company’s administration. By this time, I was at the end of my tether. None of the changes that were in fact made as a result of the general meeting’s rejection of these two documents had been marked up in tracked changes.
I did a full re-translation of the articles of association and of the bylaws and have just charged them over 1,000 euros to do so.
The moral of this story is that, if you come with your legal documents to me for translation, you will get a full service. It is a full service I have offered and given of my own volition to corporate entities across the world for 30 years and for which one or two – I do not exaggerate – one or two have thanked me. It is a service that many of them have not paid for: I did it as a “favour”. It is a service which I will gladly do for you, where you want guidance and advice; but for those who get the advice and then ignore it, I am also happy to re-translate badly administered documentation till the cows come home. At 1,000 euros a shot.
I offer a full service. I give a full service. You pay for a full service. And I save you oodles of money. But, I don’t do mind-reading.