Online conference success – a perfect small package

 

Last week, I participated in an online conference presented by ILETA (International Legal English Trainers’ Academy) and organized by Sofia Parastatidou. Curiously, it was the best online conference I have ever attended precisely because it was organized so differently from an in-person conference. The factors that contributed to its success were the limited but highly coherent content, the small number of participants and its short but flexible schedule. In practice, the conference left the impression of having physically attended without all the logistics.

In general, online conferences, however economical and convenient they may be, suffer from issues of downtime, lack of intimacy and mental fatigue. As most online conferences have only one track and try to reach the largest potential audience, many of the lectures are irrelevant to a certain percentage of the participants. In a physical conference, this dead time is ideal for networking but online conferences do not offer such opportunities. A more serious issue is that the audience in larger remote conferences is literally a sea of faces. It is very clumsy to interact with other participants during the conference. As many cultures consider efficiency and timeliness virtues, the host keeps the schedule moving more or less on time, leaving very little time for open discussions while everybody is present. The consequence is a large quantity of intellectual material but very few connections.

In this conference, the lectures related to a narrow topic, specifically legal language, and, most importantly, complemented and supplemented each other. Each lecturer went into depth on an aspect mentioned by a previous presenter, thus creating a complete picture. For example, I spoke about the rules of Plain English in legal writing while Anna Sobota and Anna Setkowicz-Ryszka, respectively, analysed its actual implementation using statistical methods and showed how the difference between how attorneys and linguists view proper legal language. The presentations built on each other.

This online conference highlighted the strength of distance learning. It would have been completely impractical to bring together all of the participants as each of us lived in a different country. Thus, Zoom allowed all of us to participate. More importantly, given the relatively small number of persons involved, everybody could easily see each other's faces, ask questions, make comments and have their say. There was more than enough airtime for everybody. Clearly, less is more in online events.

The strangest aspect, surprisingly positive, was the lack of a firm time structure. The host ran it on Italian time, meaning she let discussions continue until they died a natural death. Thus, we had the opportunity to discuss issues raised in the presentation before going on to the next segment. The “price” was that there were only a limited number of lectures in the day-and-a-half long conference. However, the benefit is that it is far easier to retain the content. As an analogy, seeing one museum in a day is memorable while visiting three museums in a day creates a muddled picture.  Again, less was more.

In summary, the ILETA conference virtually felt like an in-person conference. It provided both content and interaction, feeling like a conversation in a cozy salon rather than a distant event. The keys were highly focused content, similarly engaged persons and flexibility. It was a perfect day, showcasing the potential of a properly organized online conference.

Freelance service providers – Beware of unlimited liability clauses in agreements

 

[minefield warning*]

The attitude of many freelancers staring at a long agency agreements with small print is either to consider it a “mission impossible” to actually read and understand it or fatalistically hope that it never becomes relevant, whatever it is written there. Thus, feeling helpless, they sign it blindly. Unfortunately, most agency service agreements include a very problematic clause that should and can be negotiated. Specifically, numerous agencies try to impose unlimited liability on the service provider for any damage, direct or indirect, resulting from an error. To quote a recent agreement I received: “The supplier shall ensure that the goods or services it provides are free from defects and feature the warranted characteristics. The liability of the supplier in this respect is unlimited.” This potential for huge loss is real but the service provider can quickly and easily identify the terminology in the contract and have the agency insert reasonable liability language, eliminating the risk.

It is a mistake to dismiss such a risk as theoretical only. First, it is true that US and possibly European consumer law possibly does protect parties from outrageous terms in “adhesion contracts”, agreements such as those binding consumers on various Internet sites and purchase agreements. However, these laws often do not protect agreements between businesspeople, who are expected to read and understand what they sign. Furthermore, many freelancers, especially translators, mistakenly believe that the clause is on paper only and is never applied. I personally know of one incident of a translator that had to pay for reprinting of a run of books after the publisher belatedly discovered a critical error. As in all statistical incidents, there is no consolidation in being the 1 in the nth number. Unfortunately, liability insurance is generally not a practical option as In most countries, the premium is far too expensive to justify given the freelancer’s income and frequency of events. Thus, ignoring the risk can be ruinous.

To protect themselves, freelance service providers merely need to take the following steps. First, conduct a search (Control F) in the Word or PDF document for the words “indem” and “liab” The results should identify those clauses that contain “indemnify/indemnification and liable/liability and may pose some risk. In my opinion and I am not a lawyer, it is possible to ignore those terms when they refer to data protection or non-disclosure as the freelancer has full control of the matter. However, if the agency wants to impose unlimited liability on the service provider for defects, a matter of disputed definition and wide-ranging consequences, it is necessary to  negotiate and insist on a restricting clause. In translation, it is standard to limit liability to the amount of the invoice. While a few agencies, generally the larger ones, refuse to compromise, most bodies  I have negotiated with have had no issue with the proposed clarification.

This efficient manner of identifying and avoiding a serious potential problem requires little effort and prevents financial stress and disaster.  Regarding the sentences cited in the first paragraph, the agency in question agreed to add the following sentence: “The service provider's maximum liability per occurrence shall not exceed the total amount invoiced.” We are now off and running. Even with individual customers, that limitation is a part of my conditions. An additional benefit, at least for a legal translator, is that the customers know that we actually read contracts. Knowledge is power.

 

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picturecredit

Legal digitalization – A catalyst for change – the ILLA (The International Language and Law Association) Conference – 2021

 

[Courthouse*]

I had the pleasure of participating this last week in the ILLA hybrid conference from Bergamo, Italy focusing on the digitization of legal discourse. As usual, the learned field of lecturers provided varying and illuminating perspectives on the changes in the legal field made possible by technology and spurred forward by the Covid situation. In the lectures that I attended, three aspects stood out, notably the evolution of legal forms, communication and substance.

Clearly, the physical barriers imposed by Covid restrictions have forced courts to adopt modern means of procedure. As Daniel Greineder noted, arbitration courts have significantly increased their use of video presentation and online evidence submitting facilitated by use of Live Note or similar software as well as rapid hearing transcripts. On a geographically larger scale, the International Court of Justice proceedings in Africa, as reported by Jekaterina Nikitina, involved mass use of video technology for both advocates and witness, including intentional hiding of faces and voices in the latter case. On an interesting note, the court allowed and requested attorneys appearing via video not to stand before the judges as the cameras would no longer be on their faces, a contrast from traditional court practice. Thus, courts have adopted to the availability of technology and difficulties of current circumstances by liberalizing their procedures.

On a communicative level, this digitization can create issues of vocabulary, intent and design form. Martina Bajcic and Martina Ticic researched key terms of EU online processes, specifically small claims, and noted the tension between use of the same term for all countries when the given term is not commonly known in a given country, giving the example of the word “domicile” in Croatia. Similarly, Sotira Skytrioiri showed how the words “bank” and “headquartered” can have different meanings, depending on specific jurisdiction, highlighting the relevant question whether an Internet bank has a territory. Giuliana Diani discussed the use of legal blogs that extract formal legal opinions to serve as a basis of personal points of view regarding the matters at hand, quickly transforming the decision from a final judgment to a basis for popular argument for legal lay persons. On the design level, Helena Haapio and Anna Hurmerinta-Haanpaa described and provided examples of actual user-friendly design, including the use of software to provide simple interpretations of legal text and a 3-level approach to online legal information: simple instructions, summary of conditions and full text, each accessible by a simple click. It was clear that the accepted manner of communicating law by Internet is in the process of change.

The most intriguing aspect was the impact on legal digitization on the present and future. Ruth Breeze compared non-commercial free advice websites with those of attorneys seeking new customers. Unfortunately, it required great viewer sophistication to distinguish the two, meaning that, through “colonization” the Internet has clearly blurred the difference between NGO legal assistance and aggressive legal firms. On a larger note, Dieter Stein noted the transition of law from oral, i.e., historical, to written, i.e., enactive, to digital, i.e., reactive. To clarify, while oral law was a form of precedent, written law was a guide for future activity, stable and slow to evolve. By contrast, online sites can change their content within minutes without any visual record of the change. On the one hand, these sites provide updated information on current regulations, quite valuable with the constant flux of Covid rules, among other matters. On the other hand, the sheer simplicity of the revision brings the disturbing image from Orwell’s 1984 of the constant, granted non-digital, changing of the news and modifying of the past. I am not sure that the long-term effects of this instant update are for the ultimate benefit of the citizen. Regardless, digitalization is changing the nature of the law.

I apologize for failing to mention the other speakers as I was unable to attend all the lectures. My own contribution was on the importance and manner of writing legal English in a manner that an average reader can understand. I also wish to thank the organizers for managing a hybrid conference quite seamlessly, a living example of digitalization on legal conferences. They provided a wonderful forum to help legal scholars of all kinds view the process of legal digitalization with a much wider lens, gaining a deeper perspective of the present situation and appreciation of future developments.

* Picture captions help the blind access the Internet.

Picture credit: Image by <a href="https://pixabay.com/users/mbraun0223-2118828/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=1223280">Mike Braun</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=1223280">Pixabay</a>

Legally Put

As a legal translator, I am not intimidated by legal language, but I recognized that even most native speakers regard the language of Shakespeare and contracts in the same light: sounds impressive but what the hell does it mean?  Who, aside from attorneys, paralegals, and legal translators, actually reads all those words in small print?

However, there is a surprisingly variety of styles in legal writing, depending on the country, purpose of document, age of attorney, and general attitude of the writer.  Two examples of this variety involved the omnipresent legal concepts of need and permission.

All contacts describe the obligations and rights of a party (not including having a good time, of course).  The issue is how to express it.  The following sentences all technically express the same requirement:

a.      The Renter shall pay the rent to the Lessor on the first day of each month.

b.      The Renter will pay the rent to the Lessor on the first day of each month.

c.       The Renter commits to paying the rent to the Lessor on the first day of each month.
- Added note:  On a sugestion from Janet Lerner, a fourth option is "The Renter is to pay the rent..."  Also very nice in my opinion.

Clearly, all three are clear and identical in meaning, with the difference being in the verb.  The use of shall as a determinative, not future, is based on the previously accepted distinction, at least by English teachers, between will and shall.  According to this archaic usage, the conjugation I shall, you will, s/he will, we shall, they will expresses the future while the conjugation I will, you shall, s/he shall, we will, they shall expresses a lack of choice.  In the case in hand, “The Renter shall…” means that the Renter has no choice.  Alas, for better or worse, I strongly doubt that many native speakers in the United States under the 30 know about this quaint rule.  In more modern English, the second sentence “The Renter will…” also expresses obligation.  The third option is less attractive both because it adds words and sounds like a translation.  However, language is a matter of taste sometimes.    As my father used to be a journalist, he ingrained in me a hatred of wasted words.

The second example involves expressions regarding the right to do something:

a.      The Lessor is entitled to cancel the agreement at any time.

b.      The Lessor has the right to cancel the agreement at any time.

c.       The Lessor may cancel the agreement.

Regarding the first, the word entitled is generally used for children and land purchases.  While technically correct, it is less applicable in this sentence.  The second is classic legal language, used in countless contracts.  However, the third is much less intimidating to the average reader and means the exact same thing.  There are disputes whether legal language should “go down” to the people.  The U.S. Congress has passed legislation ordering that.  Therefore, for reasons of simplicity, efficiency, and accessibility, I actually prefer the third option, although many lawyers would probably disagree with me.

So, no matter how you wish to legally put it, variety is the spice of life, or at least disputes, in the legal world.