Turning legal into legalEASE
Now comes the author of this article who, pursuant to that article, for the reasons set forth herein, prays, among other things, for relief from the outdated expressions, unnecessary Latinisms, and intricate legal jargon that plagues most legal writings. . Stubbornly clinging to language they would never use in any other context, many legal writers have an irrational aversion to expressing themselves in plain English. But is it really necessary to “pray” for relief instead of asking for it?
Is it more convincing to argue that the customer is entitled to a remedy “pursuant to” Section 4.16 rather than simply “pursuant to” Section 4.16? And is the plaintiff really coming now? The general consensus is that the answer to all three questions is a resounding “no” and that the legal wording is, in fact, much more effective without the legal jargon.
The movement in plain English
Over the past two decades, the move from legal jargon to legalEASE has been palpable and encouraging. In his book, “The Winning Brief,” legal writing guru Bryan Garner includes chapters on advice such as “eliminate jargon known as legal jargon,” “attack according to your vocabulary,” and “don’t use such as a pronoun.” . “The University of Virginia School of Law alumni page touts its legal writing and research program as helping students” win the battle against legal jargon. “A UCLA professor publishes a page online titled “Avoid, evade and / or eradicate legalease.” We are bombarded by ads from CLE writing seminars that promise to teach us to write clearly, in plain English. Yet many attorneys continue to cling to their legal jargon.
Resistance to abandonment
It seems clear that muddled jargon is the enemy of clarity and persuasion, but the fact that we need to attend seminars or read books to teach ourselves to write in plain English is a testament to how deeply ingrained this strange legal language has become. . Why the resistance? One explanation may be that aspiring lawyers spend three years in law school reading cases, decisions that are often centuries old, and assume that 21st-century lawyers should write like 19th-century judges. They continue to write in this style out of habit or out of a wrong sense of tradition. Other attorneys are convinced that legal jargon is more accurate. However, in most cases the opposite is true: legal jargon is less precise, redundant (“cease and desist”, “by and through a lawyer”) and difficult to handle afterwards, “difficult to handle”).
Behind the resistance there may be a vague and insecure feeling that lawyers must write in copyright to sound like lawyers and separate themselves from the rest of the population. After all, can’t a person of average intelligence write a contract or a brief of appeal in plain language? The answer, of course, is no. Replacing “parts of the present” with “Jones and Smith” devalues the importance of lawyers no more than calling a megapixel a “millionth of a screen” would render computer technicians obsolete. Lawyers are not paid for their ability to handle incomprehensible jargon. Rather, a unique ability to reason like a lawyer, to weave persuasive arguments from facts and precedents, and to pay rigorous attention to detail, sets legal writers apart from the rest of the population. Of course, there will always be a single legal lexicon, filled with artistic terms like “simple fee” and “res judicata.” Each profession has its jargon. But the legal profession is the only one that has felt the need to have its own pronouns, exclusive to the English language, and use them to alter that language.
In conclusion
THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in this document, we respectfully request that this honorable reader abandon the legal jargon and begin to present clear arguments in plain language.