It is no exaggeration to say that the categories of legal and institutional translation conjure up clearly defined images as ‘special types’ of translation (as also perceived by Harvey 2002; Mayoral 2002), seemingly subject to very precise expectations. These prevailing expectations include the frequently invoked values of “fidelity”, “accuracy”, or “neutrality”, which are often expressly required of practicing professionals by existing Codes of Ethics (see Lobato 2007, 159–69; Ortega and Lobato 2008, 551; Baixauli 2012, 196–200; Martín Ruano 2014), as well as literal translation as the norm to be followed “by default” (see Mayoral 1999a, 2002, 2003, 2004a). However, despite the powerful grip of these ideas and conceptualizations regarding legal and institutional translation on the general population, and even on translation users in legal and institutional settings, these labels in fact apply to an extremely wide range of heterogeneous translational practices with specific requirements and particular challenges in the vast array of national, international and supranational contexts within which translation operates, either at an intrasystemic or at an intersystemic level, serving a variety of different goals. Indeed, legal and institutional translated texts may be produced merely for informational purposes, may have legal effects which may or may not coincide with those initially attributed to the source text, and may even be granted authoritative status as original texts – a practice which paradoxically requires obscuring their translated nature.