The risk is substantial. Drafting standards are not equivalent across languages, and the translators are not legal translators.

Legal vocabulary contains words that are terms of art which are then bastardized and changed in usage when used in lay discussion, leading to differential meanings.

Let's not even raise the issue of the language having dramatically different meanings and legal effects across jurisdictional lines even if the wording of the text is unchanged. Or the fact that best practices in drafting specific clauses might be changed in a few weeks following the release of new jurisprudence.