Poll: As a sworn translator, have you ever been asked to stamp translations made by others?

Noni Gilbert wrote:

...with options such as these:

Do you think your non-sworn translations are being used to produce sworn translations?
Have you ever sworn a translation which was not your own translation?

A bit of anonymity might produce interesting results.

Melissa McMahon wrote:

As I understand it, the stamp means the sworn translator attests to the accuracy of the translation in relation to the source document, not that they have translated the document themselves.

I can see how it would be illegal and unethical for someone else to use my stamp on a translation I had not seen, or for me (a sworn translator) to stamp a translation without checking its accuracy, but I don't see any problem with certifying a translation I have not done myself, assuming I have indeed verified the accuracy of the translation.

And if someone takes an uncertified translation of mine and has someone else certify it after checking, I don't have a problem with that either. It doesn't seem any different to having a reviewer who then "signs off" on your work. It is up to the person whose name is on the stamp to make sure they are acting responsibly.

Of course, some clients just want you to "stamp" an existing translation on the assumption that this is a quick and simple task, which of course depends entirely on the quality of the translation. Even a good translation needs to be re-presented in an appropriate format and there is rarely nothing that needs to be changed. But theoretically, I could look over a translation, change nothing if nothing needs changing, and stamp it. It's not my translation but I am certifying its accuracy.

Just as when certifying a copy of an original, the stamp is about establishing a relationship between two documents, not about who produced the documents.

Melissa