Contact Us

Flexibility in Legal Translation Across French and English: When Consistency Isn’t Absolute

Navigating the Complexities of Flexibility in Legal Translation

In legal translation across French and English, the expectation is often for uniformity in phrasing and terminology. This consistency is usually crucial for clarity and reliability. However, strict adherence to the same words throughout isn’t always the most effective approach. Flexibility in translation can better capture the tone, intent, and nuances of legal language, especially in contexts where English offers multiple equivalents to French terms. Here, we’ll explore scenarios where translators can (and sometimes should)  vary their choices, even within the same document, to best reflect the original text’s meaning and purpose.

1. Implementation Terms: “into Force” vs. “into Effect”

In legal translation from French to English, specific terms related to the enactment or applicability of laws often arise, such as the French phrase en vigueur. Translating this phrase can involve choosing between “into force” and “into effect,” but each option has a subtly different use. Translators may switch between these terms within a document depending on the nuance required by the context.

• into force: This phrase is ideal for the formal moment a law or rule is officially enacted, marking it as legally binding. For example: “The amendment will come into force on January 1, 2025, following formal approval by the legislature.” This emphasizes the moment of official recognition.

• into effect: This wording can indicate the point at which a law or regulation has practical implications, often signaling when compliance is expected. For example: “The tax law changes will come into effect (or take effect) at the beginning of the fiscal year, impacting all applicable income.” Here, the focus is on the law’s tangible impact rather than its formal enactment.

By choosing the term that best aligns with the sentence’s intent, translators can enhance clarity and avoid awkward repetition.

2. Obligation Terms: “Shall” vs. “Must”

In legal documents, obligations are typically expressed with formal language. French commonly uses “devoir” to indicate obligation, which might translate to “shall” or “must” in English. The choice between these terms often depends on the tone and intended audience of the document, and their use has evolved with time. Notably, a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision highlighted the potential ambiguity of “shall,” ruling that in certain contexts, it could be interpreted as “may,” further contributing to the shift towards clearer alternatives.

• Shall: Traditionally used in legal language, “shall” conveys a mandatory action in a formal tone, often in clauses directed at specific parties. For instance: “The tenant shall provide written notice before terminating the lease.” Here, “shall” reflects the obligatory nature of the action within a contractual framework.
• Must: Increasingly preferred for its clarity, “must” is especially suitable for documents aimed at broader audiences. For example: “All employees must comply with the safety guidelines.” Here, “must” provides a direct, unambiguous tone, improving readability.

While modern drafting guidelines favour “must” for its simplicity and clarity, translators must also consider the style and formal tone of the source text. Some legal documents, such as contracts, may still require “shall” to align with established conventions or client expectations. This flexibility in phrasing enhances the document’s accessibility without sacrificing precision.

For further clarification, see the Government of Canada’s Legistics guideline on Expressing Obligations and Prohibitions.

3. Compliance and Hierarchical Terms: “In Accordance with,” “Under,” and “Pursuant to”

Choosing among “in accordance with,” “under,” and “pursuant to” depends on the specific relationship each term conveys between the subject and the governing rules or authority.

• In accordance with

  This phrase is often used to emphasize compliance or alignment with specific standards, laws, or guidelines, implying that the subject is in agreement with the stated rule. For example: “Organizations must process data in accordance with PIPEDA’s principles, ensuring transparency and accountability in handling personal information.” Here, “in accordance with” signals adherence or conformity to established standards.

• Under

  This term indicates a more direct relationship, where the subject is governed by or falls within the jurisdiction of a specific law or authority. For instance: “Under the Criminal Code, individuals are prohibited from operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit”. Using “under” here emphasizes that the obligation is established within the framework of the Criminal Code, suggesting that this law serves as the authoritative basis for this requirement.

• Pursuant to

  Often interchangeable with “in accordance with,” “pursuant to” has a slightly more formal tone and suggests that an action is being taken directly as a result of a rule, law, or directive. It is particularly useful in contexts where the action specifically follows from or is prescribed by a legal provision. For example: “Pursuant to Section 33 of the Charter, the government may invoke the notwithstanding clause to temporarily override certain rights and freedoms.” Here, “pursuant to” underscores that the government’s action (invoking the clause) is a direct consequence of the authority provided by the Charter.

Each term carries its own nuance, and shifting between them allows translators to fine-tune the relationship each clause expresses. By strategically choosing among “in accordance with,” “under,” and “pursuant to,” translators can enhance precision and avoid monotonous repetition, tailoring the language to the specific legal context while maintaining readability.

For additional guidance on the use of these terms, refer to Legistics by the Department of Justice Canada.

4. Readability vs. Repetition

French legal language often repeats specific terms to ensure clarity. In English, however, maintaining readability is equally important, and switching between terms can enhance comprehension. For example, rather than repeating “responsibility,” English might vary with synonyms like “duty,” “obligation,” or “requirement,” where circumstance allow, to keep the text flowing naturally without compromising meaning.

Similarly, translating a frequently used term like “client(e)” may allow for variations in English to respect tone or audience—such as alternating between “clients” and “clientele.” If the French source repeatedly uses “client(e)” in a general sense, a switch to “clientele” at some points can create a smoother reading experience.

However, the approach may vary based on context and the translator’s or client’s preference. It’s important to balance variation with consistency to ensure the legal text remains cohesive. Overuse of synonyms can sometimes dilute the precision of the legal meaning, so translators must carefully consider the context and the document’s intended audience. As a practical guide, consulting resources like Legal Translation Explained by Enrique Alcaraz and Brian Hughes can provide further strategies and insights into balancing these considerations effectively.

5. Tone Adjustments for Audience Expectations

Finally, some French legal expressions can feel overly formal when translated literally. Adapting to English-speaking readers’ expectations can mean translating “il est demandé que” (“it is requested that”) into the more direct “please provide” or “we request that.” This maintains the formality appropriate for legal documents while ensuring the document remains approachable and respectful of English-language conventions.

Final Thoughts

While consistency is often a core guideline in legal translation, it is not an absolute rule. Adapting terminology to best match context and intent can provide a more faithful, effective, and readable translation. By allowing flexibility with terms like “come into force” vs. “come into effect” or “shall” vs. “must,” translators bring nuance and precision to legal documents. However, translation choices should always be adapted to the legal system and the purpose of the document. Ultimately, the goal is to balance clarity, consistency, and accessibility – making selective choices that best serve the document’s purpose and the needs of its readers.

Our translators at Traductions nexus are committed to providing precise, contextually nuanced legal translations. For more insights into best practices and challenges in legal translation, explore our blog page for additional articles and resources.