The point in both is
clarity. Unless you purposely want to muddle your statement, you would use plain
English. Since Freshman I have been resisting this pervasive persistence in
using a language that not only had lost its currency, but has been a source of
confusion and more controversy than resolution.
Sadly, while the Court
has acknowledged the advantage in using plain English, its decisions promulgated
contemporaneous to extolling plain English, prove it’s not that ready to
abandon legalese, and is merely paying the audience some lip service.
But I was unfazed, I
continued to refuse to talk and write like I had dinosaurs around me. I knew it
was a gambit. Many still blindly believe that legalese identifies its users
with the law, and those who believe otherwise fall out of favor with legal
authorities, say the Bar Examiners in bar examinations. To them if you do
legalese, you evince show admirable esprit
de corps.
I always thought not. I
think legalese are from a long bygone era, and has no place in modern legal
society. Those who think they can impress their clients with legalese,
translating to fatter billing, underestimate their own clients.
Average-educated clients don’t care about and don’t look for legalese, but are
comfortable with lawyers who speak and write plain English because they understand
what the lawyers are saying to the court, in their behalf.
Think about it, would you
be comfortable and happy or would you instead be concerned if your lawyer
talked in court in your behalf, and finished without you understanding what he said?
What more you if you caught a glimpse of the judge looking just as confused?
Can you imagine the torment of tirelessly wondering how you fared in court
simply because your lawyer didn’t speak . . . plain English?
I dare to think more. I
think sophisticated clients know a lousy lawyer when they see one. And clients
see them often in legalese-tongued acts. If I were a client, I would take
legalese as a lawyer’s ploy to hide his unpreparedness and incompetence. Why
not come clean and plain? You certainly don’t want to get into costly
litigation over a confused word or term simply because your lawyer could not
resist his worn-out belief that legalese impresses.
One client said to an ipleader (what I call a lawyer who plain-english-advocate)
“I appreciate it that you talk in a way that I understand, and I am sure the
judge understood, as well.”
Another recounted “I felt
insulted that my lawyer talked in court in hifalutin garbage, not because I
didn’t understand, but because I knew he was talking nonsense. I fired him
before he could explain.”
Despite the fact that law
books, the internet legal vastness, and the practice overflow with legalese I
strived to find like-minded individuals, and I did find them. Below, I share some
of what they had to say about plain English.
To many of them, Bryan A. Garner is a common hero, but I have yet to get
my hands on his book.
One of my favorites is acomment to a post:
Re: silly
antiquated English pleading — I gained incredible respect for a (female)
probate commissioner I met last summer, who said flatly, “no one is going to come or pray on any of
my paperwork.”
Here is more, and with links to their
websites:
Legal Writing: Ditch“Here-and-There Words” by Andy Mergendahl as carried in an
article “Do clients expect legalese, and how should you handle it?” by Matthew
Salzwedel.
“Garner’s List of Banned Words and Phrases (and one ofmy own)” by Matthew Salzwedel.
“Legalese” by Translegal.com;
"50 Plain-Language Substitutionsfor Wordy Phrases" by Daily Wrtiting Tips.
“Simple, concise, direct:Pleading in plain English” by Raymond Ward
More useful sites, and your
own:
"Capitalization in Briefs to aTrial Court" by Melissa L. Greipp
"Rule on Writing Numbers" by Jane
Stauss+.
"Please stop capitalizing every
other word" by Sam Glover.
Enjoy Reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment