Legally Yours from Spain

Rob Lunn's blog on legal translation and the Spanish legal system

I need a sworn translation

My first experience with sworn translation happened over 15 years ago. I needed a hospital report to be translated from Hebrew to English for an insurance company in Australia. I was in England at the time, Croydon to be precise, so I went looking in the phone book for translation companies in that area. I found one close by and went around to the translator’s house.

Come to think of it, that was probably my first experience with any type of translation. Which makes sense because most people only look for translators when they need something like a certificate or a report translated, when a sworn or certified translation is often required.

Now that I’m a translator, I’d know where to find a sworn translator without having to look in the phone book. In some places, I could even provide a sworn translation. Not in Spain, though. Here, as in many countries, to be able to provide sworn translations, you need to be officially certified, which requires jumping through at least a couple of bureaucratic hoops.

Sworn translation in Spain

My only first-hand experience with sworn translation in Spain to date has been when Spanish sworn translators have offered me jobs, either to translate or proofread documents that they were later going to check again and certify. I’ve never, though, ended up working with any of these translators as I’ve always been too busy, or we haven’t been able to agree on price. It’s very likely, of course, that I’ve done translations that were later certified through agencies, which is probably a fairly common practice.

Despite my lack of experience with it, I’d venture to say that the sworn-translation system in Spain could be improved. The idea is an admirable one, but I get the feeling that the public servants who administer it, in their attempts to nicely order the world (as is the wont of many a public servant), may have factored out too many of the realities of the world. And now their system has drifted away from reality itself.

Who’s up for a bit of hoop jumping?

So, why don’t I become a sworn translator? I’m a legal translator and, in Spain at least, being one does seem to go hand in hand with being a sworn translator. But, would it really be worth all the effort required to become one?

At the moment (the requirements do change from time to time), you have to pass an exam, have certain qualifications and, I think, be a Spanish citizen. They say that the exam is difficult, but, in my case, as I’m not from here and neither are my qualifications, the other two requirements may prove to be bigger obstacles, which might even, ironically, see me having to get a sworn translation or two.

And what about the benefits? You’d think I’d have more opportunities, but would they be better ones?

What’s a stamp worth?

It seems to me that when you need a sworn translation, what you really need is the stamp that goes on it; the translation is nearly a secondary consideration. The whole thing is often just a formality; no-one cares too much about the translation.

In the case of my hospital report, for instance, I just wanted to complete the insurance company’s formalities so that I could get my money. If I needed a translation with a stamp on it, so be it, I’d get one of them.

I didn’t actually care about what the translation said. I didn’t even bother to read it after picking it up. When I did have a look at it, months later in Australia, I was a little surprised to see that the report was about injuries that I’d never even had. It had nothing to do with what had happened to me; and the English was bad. I still didn’t care that much. The insurance company had paid up by then and that was the main thing.

Hospital or translator error?

At the time, I thought the fiction that was my hospital report was the fault of the hospital, which was an extremely modern place—much more modern than all the hospitals I’ve seen in other countries (quite a few, it turns out). Everything looked new and shiny, and there was all manner of gadgetry next to the beds. But it was also a very chaotic place. They’d probably just mixed my report up with someone else’s, I’d thought.

Now that I know more about the world of translation, I think that my quite surreal report may have been the result of the translator translating out of a language that he wasn’t so familiar with. Although even that doesn’t explain the bad English. Of course, sworn translation is not regulated in the UK, so maybe this story just demonstrates that it should be.

Price, proximity or quality

I can’t remember how I chose that translator. But, as all I wanted was, in effect, a stamp, price was probably the main criterion. I was going to deliver the document to the translator in person, so proximity to where I was staying may also have been a factor. Either way, translation quality wasn’t a consideration.

So, would it be worth my while to become a sworn translator here in Spain? It’s different in the UK. There, you don’t have to become one; you just do the translation and swear that it’s authentic. The translation is effectively worth your word and how good it actually turns out to be. Hmm… more or less like a standard translation.

The rubber-stamp market: my stamp’s better than yours

In Spain, though, as it does require some effort to become a sworn translator, if all it did was turn me into a rubber-stamp seller, I’m not sure it’d be worth it.

I’d have to compete with other rubber-stamp sellers, and, as we’d all be selling exactly the same rubber stamp, when the quality of the translation wasn’t important—as in the case of my hospital report, we may end up competing mainly on price. And that is not what my translations are geared to. The idea is for people to need my work for its quality.

The question is, what percentage of the sworn translation market is just selling rubber stamps to wayward backpackers? Maybe there’s another part of that market that needs another kind of translation. It looks like I’ll have to investigate this one a little further. I’d also be interested to hear other people’s ideas and experiences. So please, let me know.

Anyway, before I start thinking about it too much, I probably should just concentrate on finishing my master’s off. Speaking of which, I should publish this and get back to that and that other thing called work, which is also calling me.

Images courtesy of saavem and Rotorhead.

Now it’s getting depressing. Every day, it seems, the Spanish government announces new austerity measures that promise to reduce our standard of living or law changes that spell a hemming in of our rights. Especially on Fridays. The biggest bombs are always dropped on Fridays.

Last Friday, for example, as well as approving cuts to health and education worth €10 billion, which include more expensive pharmaceuticals and higher university fees, the government passed a law that will allow it to choose the president of RTVE, Spain’s national public radio and television service, unilaterally.

Many fear this change will mark a return to the bad old days when partisan use of the state broadcaster by the government was the norm and, indeed, an expected and accepted privilege of holding office.

From a personal point of view, the current climate—the economy and the measures that are supposed to help it—doesn’t give you much reason to feel confident about the present, let alone the future.

Last night on a TV documentary, I saw that unemployment in the US in the great depression reached 25%. I thought, “Ahh, just like in Spain now”. But then they went on to talk about the New Deal and investment in public works to lower unemployment and drive growth, and that’s where the similarities ended: we’ve got the depression, and it’s probably big enough to be called ‘great’, but there’s no New Deal in sight.

OK, the situations are different, but we do need a little good news every now and then too.

The other day, someone on Twitter said that the last thing that she’d want to do right now is bring a child into the world. Maybe the comment was a little melodramatic and more just the result of having a bad day, but, the truth is, the current situation does make thoughts like this run through your head more often than they otherwise might.

Even if you’re doing OK, you start to think about the effect that all these measures and the economic situation itself is having and will have on those around you, your children and your parents especially, but also your family and friends in general and even the people you just see on TV, and that’s when it starts to get really depressing.

Come on, please, give us something to be happy about, and it better not just be a football match or talk of some dodgy casino park (AKA Eurovegas).

That lame third promise

What most surprised me about Spain’s last general elections was one of the three promises that the PSOE candidate for president, Alfredo Rubalcaba, made in his head-to-head debate with Mariano Rajoy, the other main candidate.

Rubalcaba said that he would ask the EU to go easy on Spain and let up on the pressure for austerity measures.

It was his third promise, and maybe he just added it on because election pledges should come in gaggles of three, but it said a lot about the current state of play in European politics.

He wasn’t revealing anything new—loss of sovereignty has been a fact of life in the EU for a long time. But it surprised me that a candidate would admit how powerless he would be as president. Such impotence didn’t seem like something you’d want to draw too much attention to in an election campaign.

And, as far promises go, you can’t much more lame than saying you’re just going to go and talk to someone.

Maybe it’s just that he had nothing else to offer. After all, it was his party that had been in power for the last two terms and during Spain’s worst economic times in democracy and, logically, any good ideas he might have had should have already been in place.

Maybe there was more to it

In hindsight, it seems that Rubalcaba was on to something. After the election, president-elect Mariano Rajoy also promised to ask the EU to cut Spain a bit of slack, and, after a bit of haggling, he did have some success. The EU ended up allowing Spain to relax its budget deficit target to 5.3% (from 4.4%), largely on the strength of last year’s actual deficit turning out to be worse than expected (8.5% instead of 6%).

And now, after a battery of budgetary and other reforms in Spain that you wouldn’t wish on your worst EU member-state mate, nearly every second day we have someone from the EU or Germany coming out in support of the Spanish government’s initiatives.

Well, at least someone’s happy with the cuts. Although it’s easy for them to be so positive; they don’t have to live here. And besides, they knew exactly what was coming, which is more than can be said for the people whom the reforms are going to affect, who are still reeling from the shock.

(Of course, there are people in Spain who support the reforms. Although voters from all sides would probably agree that it’s all getting a little depressing: new cuts seem to be announced for every news bulletin. Personally, I see as much sense in such harsh cutbacks as I did in the last government’s strategy of trying to ignore the economic crisis away: both seem to be good recipes for making it worse.)

The elections that count

What’s the big deal then? This is the EU, and EU states necessarily have their hands tied on many issues. Fair enough, but it seems that all the important decisions are still being made by the same people: the executives of the most powerful member states.

These people don’t form part of the EU institutions that we have some say in electing, but they are the ones with all the influence and power.

So, how democratic is the EU when you can’t vote directly for the people who have a big say in the laws of land you live in?

If we really are going to have a United States of Europe, let’s cut to the bit about having a true EU government as soon as possible. That or just let everyone vote in the German elections.

Photo courtesy of Gastonmag.

I recently stumbled across this interesting blog post that talks about, among other things, how shall is used in Australian contracts.

According to something called the ABC (Australian, British, Canadian) rule, “legal drafters cannot be trusted to use the word shall under any circumstances”, and shall shouldn’t be used in legal writing.

Although it looks like that advice has not been taken on board by everyone, or even by many, in Australia as apparently shall is still being used, albeit inconsistently, in Australian contracts. The post also points out that even when it’s not used, things are far from clear and consistent.

The ABC rule advocates using a more appropriate word in shall’s place. However, some might argue that shall is the most appropriate word for expressing obligation, if that’s what you’re using it for, and that trying to avoid it may lead to verb inconsistency and reader confusion.

The ABC rule surprised me. Not because of the “A” or the “C” bits (I’m from Australia but I don’t have too much experience with legal documents from there, and Canada is—and probably always will be—a mystery to me as far as everything goes), but because Britain was included as shall does seem to be pretty prevalent in English legal documents. Maybe it’s just that no-one pays much attention to the rule anywhere.

Anyway, the main thing I wanted to say here was how important it is to be aware of the conventions and the accepted practices in the legal writing of the particular jurisdiction you normally translate for. These conventions and practices will not always be settled, as in the case of shall, and you will often have a number of alternatives to choose from.

Sometimes it’s just a case of taking your pick for the sake of consistency, but on most occasions you will probably decide that one option is preferable to another, and both these types of decisions are worth compiling as a set of rules or in a style guide, which you can then follow and use to justify your decisions.

I do, for instance, use shall in legal contracts and documents. I wasn’t always sure of why and how I used it, but I’ve more or less got it straight now, but I’ll leave talking about that for another day.

Image courtesy of wbd.

Today marks the bicentenary of the enacting of Spain’s first, and the world’s third fourth, modern constitution, known as la Pepa because it was passed on Saint Joseph’s Day. (Pepe is the nickname for Joseph + “la” constitution is feminine in Spanish = Pepa.)

And, even though it didn’t last long, just six weeks (although it was also in force from 1820 to 1823 and between 1836 and 1837), it promised a lot for its time in terms of liberal democratic values.

According to Wikipedia, it “established the principles of universal male suffrage, national sovereignty, constitutional monarchy and freedom of the press, and supported land reform and free enterprise” and was apparently even used in the drafting of Norway’s constitution of 1814 and other constitutions in Latin America.

If you really feel like celebrating the bicentenary, you can even read an English version of Spanish Constitution of 1812 here.

So, as they say, ¡Viva la Pepa!

 

Last Friday (09/03), the Spanish government announced a code of good practices for the banking sector to stem the tide of home repossessions (which I posted about here and here).

The code is voluntary, but the banks that do sign it will be required to offer a series of measures that will be applied progressively for defaulting mortgage holders who meet a number of criteria, including that all household members are unemployed and that the property is worth less than a certain amount, depending on its location.

Firstly, homeowners in trouble may apply to have their loan restructured, which may include paying only the interest on the loan for four years, extending the loan to up to 40 years and reducing the “applicable interest rate on the loan to 0.25 percentage points above the benchmark Euribor rate“.

When restructuring is insufficient and mortgage payments amount to more than 60% of household income, the debt may be reduced (una quita).

The final resort is dación en pago, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, in which case the property is given in exchange for the debt being fully discharged. In this case, the family may continue living in the property for at least two years while paying a rent of 3% of the outstanding debt.

Importantly, the measures are for current mortgages and not just for new loans.

Just about everyone is unhappy with the code, which is not necessarily a bad sign.

Consumer groups say that it doesn’t go far enough and that “it will only serve to resolve an insignificant number of eviction problems that are of interest to the banks” and the banks claim that it’s not their job to fix social problems and that the government should be looking to implement measures that tackle the causes and not the effects.

Although, if you accept that some mortgage loans might have been handed out just a little irresponsibly before the crisis hit and the roof caved in, you could argue that the measure is aimed at the cause of the problem, or at least at righting a wrong to some degree.

The key to the measure having any effect at all is, of course, that some banks at least, if not the majority, take up this code.

Despite their grumbling, several banks had already declared that they would offer dación en pago on mortgage loans, and BBVA did recently cancel a couple’s mortgage in exchange for their property.

Who knows? Maybe the banks aren’t such evil beasts after all :) .

Decisions, decisions…

There comes a time in your life as a student on City University’s MA in Legal Translation when you have to make a big decision: Should you do a 10,000 wd original piece of research or an annotated translation (5,000 wd translation + 5,000 wd annotation) for your final coursework (worth a third of the final mark, incidentally)?

Well, I’ve made my decision. Throwing caution to the wind, I’ve gone for the research option. It looks to be the more uncertain of the two in terms of the amount of work involved and what work exactly you need to do, but somewhere along the line I got the idea that I might find it more interesting and maybe even more rewarding.

It’s been a long time since my undergraduate degree, so I suppose I just felt like getting down and academic again. Although what really made me decide to do the research dissertation was that I stumbled on a topic that interested me. Having an interest in the topic will hopefully help keep me motivated, although this effect may wear off quite quickly when I get into it.

Doing the research dissertation is not going to be everyone’s choice. We’ve talked a lot on the course about which option we might do and why, and there are some different theories floating around. I don’t know how close to the facts they are, but here’s a summary of the ones I can remember:

Reasons for doing the research dissertation

  • You have an idea you want to explore.
  • You like a challenge / You like leading yourself up the garden path.
  • You’re sick of doing annotated translations. (You do one for nearly every module on this course.)
  • You like writing academic papers (or you can write them in your sleep from having translated too many of them).
  • You’re thinking about doing further research.

Reasons for not doing the research dissertation

  • It’s a lot of work.
  • You haven’t got a clue on what to write 10,000 words.
  • You could get lost halfway (in terms of your research; not in getting to the library, although library access might be another factor to consider) and have trouble finishing it.
  • You hate the theory.

Reasons for doing the annotated translation

  • It’s appears to entail less work than the dissertation.
  • You’ve got the annotated translations down pat from doing them for the module assignments. (At the beginning of the course, this didn’t seem like such a big deal, but it is: you get a lot better at using the theory to talk about your translations.)
  • You’ve found a good text to translate.
  • You’ve already done a dissertation or something similar on another master’s or other degree. (Especially relevant if that master’s was also on translation.)

Reasons for not doing the annotated translation

  • You can’t find a text to translate.
  • It’s difficult to find a suitable text, i.e., one that’s long enough and will give you something to talk about.
  • You hate doing annotated translations.
  • You hate the theory. (If you hate the theory, it looks like you’re in trouble :) .)

Hmm… I wonder whether I’ve made the right decision. It may have been smarter, or at least more practical, to have gone for the annotated translation. Oh well, we’ll see how we go.

Trial by jury

In the common law world, trial by jury is closely associated with the notion of receiving a fair trial. Despite its faults, they say, it’s the best way of serving justice.

And even though juries are used far less often they we might think (e.g., they “decide less than 1% of all criminal cases in England and Wales”), they are used in cases ruling on the most serious offences, which might be why we have the idea that the concept is nearly always at work, keeping the justice system just and safeguarding us from tyranny.

Hollywood has probably helped this idea along a bit and has probably even helped juries to become accepted, or at least to seem not so strange, in countries that traditionally don’t, or didn’t, have trial by jury, which is probably all non-common law countries and certainly most civil law countries, including Spain, where trial by jury was introduced relatively recently with the passing of the Spanish Jury Law in 1995, which implements Article 125 of the 1978 Constitution.

In Spain

Prior to that, bench trials were the norm in Spain, with the judge, or judges, always handing down the verdict. The traditional belief in trial by jury and the untouchable status often given to it in common law countries did not exist in Spain.

As you can’t change people’s beliefs in a day and despite Hollywood’s influence, some people in Spain still aren’t sure that juries are the way to go, and a recent high-profile corruption case got them talking again about whether trial by jury was actually a good thing, or at least whether it was the best thing.

Francisco Camps

In this high-profile case, Francisco Camps, the ex-president of Valencia (who had stood down because of this matter), and Ricardo Costa, the ex-secretary general of the PP in Valencia (who had been stood down because of this matter, by Camps actually), were accused of having received bribes in the form of suits. The jury found, by five votes to four, both men not guilty. Even though neither of the politicians could produce proof of payment for the suits.

Some people said that a bench trial would have found Camps guilty. They claimed that it was a straightforward case and that the jury made a mistake and obviously didn’t examine the evidence properly, or that the jurors didn’t want to find Camps guilty and weren’t going to (five of the jurors, at least).

Some of these criticisms were, of course, politically motivated, but there did seem to be some genuine discussion about the case and in particular on whether trial by jury was a good thing, especially on forums and in the comments to news articles.

Par for the course

Jury verdicts in high-profile cases are argued about in many places. But, in common law countries, the discussion doesn’t usually turn so quickly to questioning the concept itself. Trial by jury, in the UK at least, is still held in high esteem, with most people taking it as a given that it’s better than the alternatives, and it doesn’t come under much scrutiny.

That’s not to say trial by jury is never questioned in common law countries; it is (listen here or read here for instance). Although most of this criticism seems to come from politicians and the institutions themselves (they say it’s costly and aren’t so keen on its unpredictability), which some would argue is reason enough to support jury trials.

And, ironically enough, at a time when other countries are introducing and extending the use of juries, Britain has restricted it and is seeking to restrict it even further, so it seems that, in the UK, the establishment is having its way on this matter.

Maybe it’s impossible to have unbiased trials for high-profile politicians. You can’t stand on a jury if you know the person being tried, but this is obviously an impractical restriction for this type of case.

Politics and judges

Judges on bench trials might make decisions that are influenced by their political persuasions or personal views, but I believe that they have a better chance of getting it right, even in high-profile cases. Their training and experience make them better prepared to examine the evidence and hopefully even to put their beliefs and attitudes to one side.

Having said that, the Garzón saga has shown how difficult it is to separate politics from the judiciary in Spain, although, with Garzón, it may have been more of a personal matter than one of politics.

I’ve changed my mind

It looks like I have changed my mind about trial by jury. Not that I ever had a strong opinion about it; I just took it for granted that that was how it should be done. But now I think that people with legal training should be the ones handing down the verdicts.

One of the arguments against bench trials, the one I used to wheel out when confronted by the idea that trial by jury might not be the best alternative, was that we should be judged by our peers as judges might be out of touch with society and current values.

But, even if Spain is producing too narrow a grey scale of judges when it comes to backgrounds and beliefs, this doesn’t mean that, with the right training, that they can’t do their job properly, which, in most cases, probably comes down to decisions of a technical nature rather than a moral one, especially when there is a fairly explicit code of legislation to base decisions on.

The other argument against bench trials, which is related to the first one, is that trial by jury is a safeguard against tyranny. This one is harder to argue against. Although, if there is a genuine separation of powers, or something close to it, the safeguard should already be there.

Would a bench trial have found Camps guilty?

I don’t know what would have happened to Camps and Costa in a bench trial, but I might have had more faith that the decision would have been made purely on technical merits. Although I’m not assuming that they would have been found guilty—I didn’t follow the trial closely enough to have even a half-informed opinion; maybe the jury didn’t get it wrong as many have suggested.

I know what I would have liked to have happened to Camps and Costa, but that’s another matter. After all, we all have our opinions on politicians. If I had been on that jury, I would have tried to focus on the evidence and put my prejudices to one side, but I’m not sure how successful I would have been.

Deviant verdicts

This is not the first controversial jury case in Spain. There have been two other famous cases in which what this article calls “deviant verdicts” were handed down: the Otegi and Wanninkof cases. Some say that these cases, along with the Camps trial, are evidence that Spain is not ready for jury trials, but examples like these can be found in all systems (e.g., OJ Simpson in the US).

I think Spain is as ready as any country for trial by jury. The problem is that trial by jury might be, at the most, only the second best option.

Anyway, now that juries are becoming part of the furniture in Spain, I imagine that, as the years go by, there will be less and less debate about how just they are.

Translation of jurado profesional and jurado popular

It might seem like a waste of Web space to spend more than two lines talking about the translation of these terms, as they do seem fairly straightforward, but…

While you won’t get too much argument over the translation of jurado<>jury, owing to some of the cultural differences touched on above, there does not appear to be a direct equivalence in usage when you want to differentiate between the two types of trials or juries.

Whereas, in Spanish, making the distinction between “popular” and “professional” is quite natural, in English, you seem to have a jury or you don’t, although this particular English usage might be more characteristic of a general register.

So, you have two options.

As I have done in this post, you can just talk about bench trials and juries, which is more of a target-language focused and indirect approach. No jury and juryless trial are other possibilities along this line.

Or, you can go for professional jury and jury or popular jury, which might be useful if you want to provide more of a source-system focus and more cultural information. It might also be the best way to go in academic articles on the Spanish legal system, particularly if the terms are defined in the text.

However, it may not always be clear what “professional jury” means in English.

It could mean that the judge(s) hand down the verdict (i.e., as in the jurado profesional or bench trial), but it may also be understood to mean a jury selected from a pool of qualified jurors.

This is, at any rate, how “professional jury” is being used here.

So, maybe I would always try to go for the bench trialjury option. At least unless it was an article in which the jurado profesional was defined at some point or a text that was specifically about the jurado profesional.

Am I changing my mind again?

Thinking about it a little, having professional juries made up of a pool of qualified jurors could be the best solution; you’d have the best of both worlds: qualified jurors who aren’t part of the establishment.

Maybe I’ll have to give this one another rethink…

Well, some of it’s in English anyway: Poder Judicial España — Justice at your service

And here’s a useful article written by a Spanish judge that describes, among other things, the structure of the Spanish Court system: the Spanish Judiciary.


It felt like the MA finish line was close, but it turns out that the race is only half run.

I started my master’s in legal translation in October 2010 and am due to finish at the end of this October. So, out of a total of 25 months, there are just over eight left, which means I’m more than two thirds of the way there in terms of time.

The credit weightings, though, tell a different story:

4 modules in year 1:60 credits
4 modules in year 2:60 credits
Dissertation:60 credits
Total:
180 credits

I’ve done six modules—all of year one (60 credits) and half of year two (30 credits), which adds up to 90 out of a total of 180 credits: I’m only halfway there!

Image courtesy of mordoc.