Why Legal Language Must Be Understood by All
The legal profession has long had a bit of a reputation. Think endless sentences, old-timey Latin phrases, and a fondness for words most people haven’t used since the 1800s. Collectively, this dense and often confusing style is affectionately (or not) known as “legalese.” While defenders of this tradition argue that its complexity helps ensure precision, there’s a growing call from inside and outside the legal world for a clearer, plainer way of communicating the law.
Now, I’ll admit it. I’ve been known to indulge in the occasional unnecessarily elaborate legal phrase myself. “Hereinbefore” has a certain charm, doesn’t it? But despite these occasional lapses, I’m firmly in the camp that believes the shift toward plain language is more than just a trend. It is a vital step toward making the legal system more democratic, more transparent, and, frankly, more useful.
Legal language has always carried a certain mystique, and not necessarily in a good way. For centuries, it has been both admired and mocked for its inaccessibility. Christopher Williams refers to legal English’s “exclusionary function,” pointing out that its complexity, repetition, and love of Latin and archaisms can serve to keep non-lawyers firmly on the outside.1 Critics from Jonathan Swift to Charles Dickens have had a field day with this tendency toward pompous verbosity, and painted lawyers as theatrical performers in a linguistic drama that only they can follow.2
Thankfully, the Plain Language movement has stepped in to shake things up. Since the 1970s, it has been championing clear, straightforward expression, using only as many words as are necessary, while steering clear of needlessly complex constructions.3 In short, it’s about cutting through the fog and making the law understandable, even to those who don’t carry a Black’s Law Dictionary around for fun.
This push for simpler language isn’t just about readability. It’s about rights. As Esti Louw puts it, in many cases, using plain language isn’t optional anymore. It’s a legal obligation.4 And for good reason. If people can’t understand the laws that affect them, how can they be expected to follow them or to hold others accountable?
Take the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“the Constitution”). It promises a democratic, open society where everyone is equally protected by the law. A noble aim, but if that law is written in a way that only lawyers can decipher, then for most people, the promise remains out of reach.5
The data backs this up. A study by Nienaber showed that when South Africa’s Bill of Rights was rewritten in plain language, people understood it far better, regardless of their education level. Participants answered questions more accurately and completed them faster.6 Even those with law degrees found the simplified versions easier to digest.
And it’s not just South Africa. In Pakistan, research shows that plain language legal texts saved time and improved understanding across the board.7 In other words, simpler doesn’t mean sloppier. It means smarter.
The consequences of complicated legal language hit hardest where they hurt most, among people who can’t afford a lawyer or don’t have the educational background to decode legal texts. Nienaber’s work highlights how the most vulnerable members of society, those already facing economic and social challenges, are often the ones most disadvantaged by inaccessible language.8
Lord Radcliffe once described the average citizen’s experience of the law as standing “before the law like a laity in a medieval church,” with priests chanting in a language no one else could understand.9 It’s a powerful metaphor and a stark reminder of why plain language matters.
Of course, transforming legal writing won’t happen overnight. It requires a shift in mindset and a willingness to leave behind the comfort blanket of legal jargon. This includes adopting clearer drafting guidelines, using active voice, writing shorter sentences, and explaining or better yet avoiding technical terms.10
It also means legal professionals, myself included, need to embrace clarity as a sign of strength, not simplicity. The benefits are clear: fewer misunderstandings, greater compliance, less confusion, and a public that feels empowered rather than excluded.11
In the end, the move from legalese to plain language isn’t just good writing. It’s good law. It helps demystify the justice system, puts power back in the hands of the people, and ensures that the law lives up to its promise of fairness and accessibility for all. So let’s hang up the “heretofores” and “whereases” for a bit, and speak in a language that everyone can understand. Because justice shouldn’t require a translator.
Written by Theo Tembo
Read more from The Legal Desk:
- Williams, C. (2004) Legal English and plain language: An introduction.” ESP across Cultures 1.1. 111-124, 1. ↩︎
- Nienaber, AG. (2001). The comprehensibility and accessibility of South Africa’s Bill of Rights: An Empirical Study. De Jure, 34(1), 113-135, 114. ↩︎
- Eagleson, cited in Nienaber, 2001, 114. ↩︎
- Louw, E. (2020) Why should you use plain language in legal documents? What is all the fuss about plain language? , 2. ↩︎
- Nienaber supra 113. ↩︎
- Nienaber supra 124–128. ↩︎
- Rubab, I., Khan, M. Y., & Asgher, T. (2020). Transformation of legal texts into simplified accounts to make the justice accessible. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 4(1), 141-153, 2. ↩︎
- Nienaber supra 129. ↩︎
- Nienaber supra 131. ↩︎
- Newman, S. (2010). The influence of plain language and structure on the readability of contracts. Obiter, 31(3), 735-745; Gootkin, C. (2013). Nothing plain about plain drafting: practice note. De Rebus (529), 19-20. ↩︎
- Louw supra 4–5. ↩︎
The Legal Desk 
Leave a comment