Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3] >
Contract with non-disparagement clause
Thread poster: John Fossey

Mirko Mainardi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 04:18
Member
English to Italian
What is "legitimate"? Nov 15, 2018

William Tierney wrote:

I was wondering if anyone was going to call me on the overbroad description of contract obligations. Consider me busted! So anyone considering selling heroin via contract, fugettaboutit. The point was to show that legitimate obligations become binding, just as a law is binding.


My post wasn't meant to "get you", or as an attack or a mockery of yours, William... so there's no need to tread into that territory, really...

My point was merely that not everything you write in a contract becomes "a law unto itself" once both parties agree to it, and I just used an evident hyperbole to say that. Leaving that aside, if I and John both had doubts about the "legitimacy" of the non disparagement clause he mentioned, it means boundaries of what is (perceived as) "lawful" and enforceable and what isn't are not so universal and clear cut either... That's all.

For the new translators on this blog, I know you want to take whatever job you can, but please develop the ability to say "no" to agencies. This helps you and helps us all.


That's my +1. But unfortunately it's a lost battle, also considering the "free market" mythos prevailing here and elsewhere dictates otherwise.

Have you contacted ProZ and asked them to insert a banner on the blueboard report for this agency to alert translators that this agency requires vendors to sign a non-disparagement clause? This is important information for translators to know.


Have you ever seen anything like that on the BB? As John was saying, rules dictate you can only leave a comment if you have already worked for a client, and even then it's subject to quite a strict scrutiny from the powers that be, who proclaim themselves as being "just a venue" (based on the same mythos mentioned above).

[Edited at 2018-11-15 17:52 GMT]


 

Eliza Hall
United States
Local time: 23:18
Member (2018)
French to English
+ ...
Nondisparagement clauses are easily enforced Nov 15, 2018

Sheila Wilson wrote:
I have to disagree with that. A court will examine a contract and will throw out any abusive clauses as not being legally defensible.


No, that's definitely not the general rule. Throwing out contract provisions as abusive is very rare. I'm speaking as a lawyer who has litigated many many cases involving contracts.

Sheila Wilson wrote:I know because I was once paid in full even though the contract I very stupidly signed (I was much younger and naïve) said that in those exact circumstances I wouldn't be paid. The judge didn't hesitate before declaring it abusive!


You were lucky: some contract provisions are obviously abusive. Agreeing not to be paid even though you did the work is an example of something that courts will scrutinize; unless the reasons for nonpayment are fair -- for instance, you did the work but you turned it in so late that the client couldn't use it, or your work was such a bad quality that it couldn't be used -- that's not the type of provision that will hold up, because it defeats the entire purpose of the contract and gives the client something for free that any rational businessperson should have expected to pay for.

But a nondisparagement provision does not, at all, fall into that category. Those provisions are routinely enforced.

Sheila Wilson wrote:
Maybe it isn't close enough to be used as an example, but I'm active on TripAdvisor and one local accommodation provider made holidaymakers sign that type of clause. They were immediately banned from TA. I would hope that ProZ.com would do the same.


TripAdvisor banned them because the terms of service of TripAdvisor include letting customers review your business. If you don't let them review you, then you're not allowed to be on TripAdvisor. Also, as of December 2017, in the United States CONSUMER contracts -- in all caps because we're not "consumers" in this sense -- can't prohibit consumers from posting negative reviews. In other words if you're given some standardized click-through contract from a business that you're buying something from, or you have to sign a contract at Home Depot when you buy an appliance or something, those contracts cannot legally prohibit you from leaving negative reviews:

https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2017/2017-01-18-new-federal-law-prohibits-non-disparagement-provisions-in-form-contracts

But that law doesn't apply to us. Service contracts between a freelancer and a client or translation agency, or employment contracts, are not covered by that law. And in any case it's only the law in the US.

I do agree with you that ProZ should ban anyone, translation company or translator, who tries to contractually prevent others from rating them on ProZ. I don't know if that's ProZ's policy but it would be a good idea.


 

Eliza Hall
United States
Local time: 23:18
Member (2018)
French to English
+ ...
Why it's hard to challenge these after signing Nov 15, 2018

William Tierney wrote:

On whether something is abusive or "adhesive" (Thank you Sheila), abusive agencies bank on the translator's unwillingness to challenge abusive clauses (like no-competition, indemnity, etc.). The best solution is to buck up and negotiate better terms and skip court solutions completely.


Exactly. Absolutely. They bank on the fact that even if the clause is abusive, we would have to take them to court in order to get a clear ruling that we are not obligated to do what that clause says. And that's not cheap.

The only way it would ever be cheap is if it were a payment provision and the amount due were low enough for you to bring the case in small claims court (in the US; there may be equivalents elsewhere). In small claims court you don't need a lawyer, and the filing fee is on the order of $25. So it's cheap, although it still does require you to sacrifice many hours of your life preparing for the hearing and sitting around all morning or all day waiting for your turn (low-level cases are heard on a certain day, but usually not at a certain time, and when your case comes up will depend on how long the cases before you took).

But you can't challenge things like non-disclosure or non-disparagement clauses in small claims court. Those procedures are only for straightforward "he owes me money/no I don't" cases. It would cost bare minimum thousands of dollars to challenge this type of clause in court in the US, unless you happened to find a lawyer willing to do it pro bono (for free). And even then, it would still eat up many hours and many days of your life.

So your best protection is just to not sign these in the first place.


 

John Fossey  Identity Verified
Canada
Local time: 23:18
Member (2008)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
BlueBoard rule Nov 15, 2018

Eliza Hall wrote:

TripAdvisor banned them because the terms of service of TripAdvisor include letting customers review your business. If you don't let them review you, then you're not allowed to be on TripAdvisor.


BlueBoard rule # 8 says:

"Attempting to influence another's use of the Blue Board is prohibited.
Exerting pressure on someone to change a Blue Board entry or reply, or to make a new entry or reply of a specific nature, is forbidden. (Inviting service providers or outsourcers to make entries or replies is acceptable, as long as there is no attempt to influence the content of those postings.)"

IMO, the contract clause in question is a clear violation of this rule.

[Edited at 2018-11-15 20:01 GMT]


Mirko Mainardi
Yolanda Broad
 

Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Member (2014)
Danish to English
+ ...
Blue Board rules Nov 15, 2018

Eliza Hall wrote:

I do agree with you that ProZ should ban anyone, translation company or translator, who tries to contractually prevent others from rating them on ProZ. I don't know if that's ProZ's policy but it would be a good idea.


Blue Board rule number 8 says:

'Attempting to influence another's use of the Blue Board is prohibited.
Exerting pressure on someone to change a Blue Board entry or reply, or to make a new entry or reply of a specific nature, is forbidden. (Inviting service providers or outsourcers to make entries or replies is acceptable, as long as there is no attempt to influence the content of those postings.)'


Any clause to the effect that a supplier cannot publish certain types of objective feedback in the Blue Board would thus seem to be a violation of this site rule and should be reported to Proz support.

I have come across clauses that indirectly ban any sort of Blue Board feedback entirely. I never sign that type of clause, for example this one (slightly edited to conceal origin):

'The supplier shall not publish or divulge the existence of any relationship with Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited* without the prior written consent of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*, which consent may be withheld at the sole discretion of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*.'

*) Fictional name.

In fact, such a clause bans me from giving for example my accountant, fiscal authorities, insurers, legal advisors and solicitors information they may need.


Mirko Mainardi
Yolanda Broad
 

Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Member (2014)
Danish to English
+ ...
You beat me to it Nov 15, 2018

John Fossey wrote:

BlueBoard rule # 8 says:


We were writing this simultaneously.


 

Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 04:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Some thoughts Nov 15, 2018

Thomas T. Frost wrote:
Blue Board rule number 8 says:
'Attempting to influence another's use of the Blue Board is prohibited.
Exerting pressure on someone to change a Blue Board entry or reply, or to make a new entry or reply of a specific nature, is forbidden. (Inviting service providers or outsourcers to make entries or replies is acceptable, as long as there is no attempt to influence the content of those postings.)'


Sure, but it doesn't say that it is prohibited to prohibit anyone from making a Blue Board entry in the first place. It just says you're not allowed to pressure someone to change an existing entry. Anyone can still request anyone else to refrain from posting or to change an existing rating -- the issue here is pressuring.

I'm confident that "pressure" in this sense refers to instances where one party has power over the other. If you haven't signed a contract yet (if neither of you owe the other anything yet), then you and the client have an equal power relationship, and if you willingly and without coercion sign an agreement not to post something on the Blue Board, then you're not being "pressured".

I must add that I'm surprised by the many strong reactions to this sort of request in this thread. Let's not forget that sometimes contracts contain text that almost serve as mere reminders of ethical behaviour, and having respect for clients' dignity is certainly an ethical issue. In this day and age of posting savage reviews at the slightest disagreement, and posting on social media without thinking through the consequences of the post, it is understandable that a client may be concerned about this and require of its service providers to exercise restraint in this matter.

Anyway, it's possible to hurt an outsourcer via the Blue Board without being negative: simply post a 3-star rating "Maybe (I might work again with this outsourcer)".

'The supplier shall not publish or divulge the existence of any relationship with Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited* without the prior written consent of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*, which consent may be withheld at the sole discretion of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*.'


Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more contracts with similar clauses. It is common translators' ethics that the identity of your client and details of the job are all supposed to be confidential. This is why posting a negative review on the Blue Board should be a last resort, and why posting a positive review should never the done without the client's consent or unless you are quite confident that your client would welcome it.


[Edited at 2018-11-15 21:02 GMT]


Yolanda Broad
 

Eliza Hall
United States
Local time: 23:18
Member (2018)
French to English
+ ...
Confidentiality is owed to the end client, not the agency intermediary Nov 15, 2018

Samuel Murray wrote:

'The supplier shall not publish or divulge the existence of any relationship with Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited* without the prior written consent of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*, which consent may be withheld at the sole discretion of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*.'


Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more contracts with similar clauses. It is common translators' ethics that the identity of your client and details of the job are all supposed to be confidential.


I think that's actually two different things. The ethical obligation of confidentiality runs between you and the real client, i.e., the source of the document to be translated. It doesn't run between you and the translation agency acting as the intermediary between you and the real client, except to the extent necessary to protect the real client's interests. In other words it prohibits you from revealing the name of the real client and the contents of the original document. So...

Samuel Murray wrote:
This is why posting a negative review on the Blue Board should be a last resort, and why posting a positive review should never the done without the client's consent or unless you are quite confident that your client would welcome it.


...that's not true, at least not in your example (in which the "client" is Acme Translation Corp. Ltd.). Posting a review stating that Acme Translation Corp. didn't pay you does not reveal anything unethically. It doesn't damage the interests of the real client at all for you to reveal that the agency they hired has bad business practices. To the contrary, they actually might want to know that.

Confidentiality means you keep private the name of the real client and the content of the original and your translation; it doesn't mean you are obligated to conceal the fact that some translation agencies treat translators unethically.

[Edited at 2018-11-15 21:55 GMT]


Daryo
Christine Andersen
 

Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Member (2014)
Danish to English
+ ...
'Attempting to influence another's use of the Blue Board is prohibited' Nov 15, 2018

Samuel Murray wrote:

Sure, but it doesn't say that it is prohibited to prohibit anyone from making a Blue Board entry in the first place. It just says you're not allowed to pressure someone to change an existing entry. Anyone can still request anyone else to refrain from posting or to change an existing rating -- the issue here is pressuring.


'Attempting to influence another's use of the Blue Board is prohibited' seems to prohibit prohibition. I know it's the header, but headers are part of the rules.

Samuel Murray wrote:

I must add that I'm surprised by the many strong reactions to this sort of request in this thread. Let's not forget that sometimes contracts contain text that almost serve as mere reminders of ethical behaviour, and having respect for clients' dignity is certainly an ethical issue. In this day and age of posting savage reviews at the slightest disagreement, and posting on social media without thinking through the consequences of the post, it is understandable that a client may be concerned about this and require of its service providers to exercise restraint in this matter.


We're not really talking about unreasonable people who post savage reviews, but about reasonable people who post comments such as 'late payment', which are negative and objective at the same time.

Samuel Murray wrote:

'The supplier shall not publish or divulge the existence of any relationship with Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited* without the prior written consent of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*, which consent may be withheld at the sole discretion of Acme Translation Corporation Unlimited*.'


Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more contracts with similar clauses. It is common translators' ethics that the identity of your client and details of the job are all supposed to be confidential.

This is why posting a negative review on the Blue Board should be a last resort, and why posting a positive review should never the done without the client's consent or unless you are quite confident that your client would welcome it.


If you can't identify the client, what's the use of the Blue Board? It's legitimate to use a credit reference, by the way. Companies do it all the time. Try asking a bank for a loan and tell them you don't want them to look you up in a credit reference database. If the Blue Board were only used as a last resort (for what?), it would be useless.


 

Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 04:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Eliza Nov 15, 2018

Eliza Hall wrote:
The ethical obligation of confidentiality runs between you and the real client, i.e., the source of the document to be translated. It doesn't run between you and the translation agency acting as the intermediary between you and the real client, except to the extent necessary to protect the real client's interests.


I don't agree. The intermediary's interests are also important. The intermediary also has business interests that could be harmed by disclosure of information.

For example, if it becomes known to the agency's competitors that a specific translator had worked for the agency, then it also becomes known to them in which language combination and potentially also in which field that agency had recently accepted commissions. A search on e.g. translation forums for terminology questions or software support queries by that translator, or comments on social media, may even allow competitors to deduce the identity of the end-client, or into which direction the agency may be branching. And why is this information useful to the agency's competitors? Poaching.


[Edited at 2018-11-15 22:59 GMT]


 

Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Member (2014)
Danish to English
+ ...
Yes, but Nov 15, 2018

Samuel Murray wrote:

I don't agree. The intermediary's interests are also important. The intermediary also has business interests that could be harmed by disclosure of information.

For example, if it becomes known to the agency's competitors that a specific translator had worked for the agency, then it also becomes known to them in which language combination and potentially also in which field that agency had recently accepted commissions. A search on e.g. translation forums for terminology questions or software support queries by that translator, or comments on social media, may even allow competitors to deduce the identity of the end-client, or into which direction the agency may be branching. And why is this information useful to the agency's competitors? Poaching.


Yes, you can construct a theoretical case like this. In most cases, agencies write on their own websites what they are doing, though. It's difficult to attract clients if the agency keeps its activities secret.

But when agencies nearly without exception ask for credit when buying translations, they need to accept that their credit record is shared amongst translators. If I can't get at least an indication that a given agency is meeting its obligations towards suppliers, then it's very simple: I don't give it credit – just like most banks wouldn't lend you money if you had previously defaulted on loans. If an agency doesn't like this system, it can avoid it by paying up front and paying for credit at a bank instead of getting it free from the translator.


Daryo
 

Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 04:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Thomas I and II Nov 15, 2018

Thomas T. Frost wrote:
'Attempting to influence another's use of the Blue Board is prohibited' seems to prohibit prohibition. I know it's the header, but headers are part of the rules.


I'm afraid the rules aren't particularly well written, and that one has to interpret them as a whole. For example, can you figure out what's the real difference between rule 8 and rule 9? Both rules apply to both outsourcers (agencies) and service providers (translators) and they appear to say pretty much the same thing.

We're not really talking about unreasonable people who...


Oh, but we are. The client has no way of knowing whether each translator who signs the contract is a "reasonable person". If contracts included only clauses that related to the actions of reasonable people, they would be a lot shorter. (-:

If you can't identify the client, what's the use of the Blue Board?


The Blue Board didn't come first.

Anyway, I'm not saying you can't ever use the Blue Board. I'm just saying you have to use it responsibly. The mere fact that the Blue Board has popped into existence does not mean that decades-old principles regarding client confidentiality no longer apply.

It's legitimate to use a credit reference, by the way. Companies do it all the time.


None of my comments are in any way related to credit referencing.

If the Blue Board were only used as a last resort (for what?), it would be useless.


I never said that the Blue Board should only be used as a last resort. I said that it should be used as a last resort if you're using it without the client's consent. And for what, you ask... well, for warning off colleagues, of course. After all, you're not allowed to use the Blue Board for any other purpose.

It's a bit of a paradox, isn't it -- those of us who read the Blue Board benefit from comments made by colleagues who may not actually have had the right to make those comments, but that's not going to make us stop reading the Blue Board. I wonder if that's bad... (-:

...

Thomas T. Frost wrote:
Yes, you can construct a theoretical case like this.


It is precisely because of such theoretically constructed cases like this that people who take confidentiality seriously take it seriously. No-one knows in advance in what way a breach in confidentiality may cause harm, but it often involves a third party's ability to bring pieces of information together that breachers could not imagine would ever be brought together.

In most cases, agencies write on their own websites what they are doing, though. It's difficult to attract clients if the agency keeps its activities secret.


The fact that an agency posts some information on their web site does not mean that they have no secrets. And it is not up to translator to decide what information should be revealed to the public -- the agency decides.

But when agencies nearly without exception ask for credit when buying translations, they need to accept that their credit record is shared amongst translators.


Are you suggesting that clients have no right to expect circumspection if they don't pay in advance?

[Edited at 2018-11-15 22:58 GMT]


 

John Fossey  Identity Verified
Canada
Local time: 23:18
Member (2008)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Credit record Nov 15, 2018

Samuel Murray wrote:
Are you suggesting that clients have no right to expect circumspection if they don't pay in advance?


Absolutely. No business can expect to have credit extended to them (meaning they don't have to pay in advance) unless they have a reputation that is reflected by a good credit record. That is universal practice for any business or consumer, and agencies are no different.


Daryo
 

Nikki Scott-Despaigne  Identity Verified
Local time: 04:18
French to English
Gag order Nov 15, 2018

Obviously, the law of the country in which the contract is drawn up is the law that will apply. If you are talking about Canada, for example, it is highly likely that you can put anything you want in a contract so long as it is not against the law. Then the shades of grey start to kick in, with the law probably not allowing unfair contractual terms, but testing what is unfair or not may mean ending up in court. As for not saying negative things about the client, well, Canada probably has freedom... See more
Obviously, the law of the country in which the contract is drawn up is the law that will apply. If you are talking about Canada, for example, it is highly likely that you can put anything you want in a contract so long as it is not against the law. Then the shades of grey start to kick in, with the law probably not allowing unfair contractual terms, but testing what is unfair or not may mean ending up in court. As for not saying negative things about the client, well, Canada probably has freedom of speech, but there are certain things you cannot say without getting into trouble. Defamation may be something you have to be careful about and rules on this do vary from one country to another. (I'm not saying that saying negative things about a client is defamation).
Although it might to reasonable for agent A to expect translator T not to wage a war against them on the internet if a project turns sour, it is unlikely that a "gag order" type clause would hold up in court. If defamation becomes an issue, then there are no doubt statutory provisions that take care of that and whatever is written

[Edited at 2018-11-15 23:45 GMT]
Collapse


 

Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Member (2014)
Danish to English
+ ...
Many questions and many answers Nov 16, 2018

Samuel Murray wrote:

I'm afraid the rules aren't particularly well written, and that one has to interpret them as a whole. For example, can you figure out what's the real difference between rule 8 and rule 9? Both rules apply to both outsourcers (agencies) and service providers (translators) and they appear to say pretty much the same thing.


Rule 8 and 9 are clearly different. Rule 8 prohibits interference with Blue Board use. Rule 9 prohibits using the Blue Board as a tool to obtain something.

I have submitted a support ticket with the clause I quoted to ask Proz to clarify their view on it, and I'll post the reply.

Samuel Murray wrote:
The client has no way of knowing whether each translator who signs the contract is a "reasonable person". If contracts included only clauses that related to the actions of reasonable people, they would be a lot shorter. (-:


Most jurisdictions have laws against defamation and libel. Furthermore, any outsourcer can contest a Blue Board entry and get it removed if the translator cannot justify their criticism. The risk that some people could be unreasonable does not justify a gag order for everybody. It's like saying because some drivers are unreasonable, we need a complete driving ban. Or more generally that if anybody could abuse anything, then it must be prohibited for everybody.

Furthermore, if a translator behaves like a toddler throwing his toys out of the proverbial pram in his Blue Board comments, it could easily harm the translator more than the agency, as other agencies would be wary of doing business with him.

Samuel Murray wrote:
Anyway, I'm not saying you can't ever use the Blue Board. I'm just saying you have to use it responsibly. The mere fact that the Blue Board has popped into existence does not mean that decades-old principles regarding client confidentiality no longer apply.


The vast majority of users use it responsibly. Procedures are in place for dealing with those who don't. Again, the latter does not justify a global gagging order.

There has never been any complete client confidentiality in B2B transactions. Annual accounts are public, for example. I’m not aware of any law in any jurisdiction that prohibits company A from stating in public that they are doing business with company B. Companies are not individuals and therefore do not benefit from the protections individuals enjoy under privacy laws. If they want confidentiality, they need to agree on contractual provisions.

Samuel Murray wrote:

I wrote: It's legitimate to use a credit reference, by the way. Companies do it all the time.

None of my comments are in any way related to credit referencing.


Mine are. It is one of the main uses of the Blue Board. What else would you use it for? Virtual scenic excursions in agency practices as an academic exercise of marvelling over the splendid and exotic prose? As a thriller advancing through unpredictable reports of joy followed by sadist horrors of baddies getting away with financial murder?

Samuel Murray wrote:

I wrote: If the Blue Board were only used as a last resort (for what?), it would be useless.

I never said that the Blue Board should only be used as a last resort. I said that it should be used as a last resort if you're using it without the client's consent.

And for what, you ask... well, for warning off colleagues, of course.


I don’t need the agency’s consent if I have not signed an agreement prohibiting public comments, and I would never sign such an agreement unless they pay up front.

Warning colleagues should not be a last resort.

Samuel Murray wrote:
It's a bit of a paradox, isn't it -- those of us who read the Blue Board benefit from comments made by colleagues who may not actually have had the right to make those comments, but that's not going to make us stop reading the Blue Board. I wonder if that's bad... (-:


Not really. I take responsibility for what I write. It’s not my responsibility to police what others write.

Samuel Murray wrote:
It is precisely because of such theoretically constructed cases like this that people who take confidentiality seriously take it seriously. No-one knows in advance in what way a breach in confidentiality may cause harm, but it often involves a third party's ability to bring pieces of information together that breachers could not imagine would ever be brought together.

And it is not up to translator to decide what information should be revealed to the public -- the agency decides.



You seem to presume that writing a Blue Board comment without permission is a breach of confidentiality, but unless a law or contract prohibits it, it isn’t.

Again, if an agency is so terrified out of their wits that they think they need gagging orders, then they need to be prepared to pay up front instead of demanding credit, not to forget that the most effective way to avoid negative feedback is to avoid giving anyone any reason to write negative feedback.

Samuel Murray wrote:

I wrote: But when agencies nearly without exception ask for credit when buying translations, they need to accept that their credit record is shared amongst translators.


Are you suggesting that clients have no right to expect circumspection if they don't pay in advance?


They are entitled to take whatever precautions they like, and I am entitled to decline giving them credit or doing business with them if I do not wish to accede to their terms. I don't belong to any agency, and if they want to control me so much that I'd end up in a straitjacket, I walk away, just as in that wonderful, classic song You Don't Own Me.


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Contract with non-disparagement clause

Advanced search







Wordfast Pro
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform

Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users! Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value

More info »
Anycount & Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000

Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search