ERIN C. COWLING
  • Home
  • About
  • Freelance Lawyer Services
  • Legal Career Consulting
  • Blog
  • Speaking
  • Publications

Plain Language Please. 'Tis Time To Sayeth Goodbye to Legalese

2/12/2015

3 Comments

 
"Know all Men by These Presents".  Those were the first words in a release I reviewed in 2014. Yes, 2014.

Granted, the drafter of the document was on the verge of retirement, but still, who writes like this anymore? And I am not referring to the non-gender-neutral terminology. I could (and likely will) write a whole other blog post on gender-neutral language in law and related issues. For example, there is a prominent court reporting agency in downtown Toronto that  identifies male lawyers on their transcripts as John Smith Esq. and female lawyers as simply Ms. Jane Smith  (at least they did the last time I used them a few years ago). This irked me to no end. Why 'honour' only men with the title of esquire? I am a lawyer too. And yes, I do understand the historical context of 'esquire'. Anyway, I digress. This blog post is really about lawyers' love of confusing language and legalese. The release mentioned above went on to state that "the parties hereto doth hereby remise, release and forever discharge each other . . ."  Hereto? Doth? Really? When was the last time you used the word "doth" in a sentence, or "hereto" for that matter? And what exactly does "Know all Men by these Presents" even mean? I have no idea. I just picture a bunch of old men holding onto gift wrapped boxes. I can only guess that it means something along the lines of "Let everyone know".

As a corporate litigator, I read many contracts searching for a clause that would either save my client's behind or bury the other side.  After hours of reviewing these dense documents  I would often have to read the same clause multiple times just to understand it.  Fortunately, my clients were sophisticated corporations who could afford expensive lawyers to interpret the language for them. Unfortunately, most people cannot afford to have a lawyer review every document or contract they sign. The majority of bank agreements, service agreements, leases, waivers at children's birthday parties etc. all contain our lawyerly language. People are likely not reading the documents they sign or if they do read them, probably do not understand them.  So, why have lawyers not embraced plain language or "modern contract drafting" as some call it? Is all of this gobbledygook/legalese necessary?

Some argue it is . Some argue that plain language in legal documents and legislation generates errors. They also argue that the law is too complex to narrow down into 'simple' words and that plain language oversimplifies or changes the meaning of the contract. 

Others, such as
PLAIN
("The Plain Language Association InterNational") disagree. They argue that plain language is not about dumbing down the words but making them more accessible to the reader. Which is, perhaps, what concerns some lawyers. If the words are too accessible, will people need us anymore to act as drafters and interpreters? Or, are we just lazy and it is too much work for us to leave behind our precedents and the language that has become second nature to us?

Maybe there is a happy medium. Recently, I came across an interesting terms of service agreement on an accounting website. For each clause of the "traditional style" contract there was a plain language or "simple terms" commentary. The introduction to the agreement states: 

"Hi! Congratulations on being the sort of person who reads Terms of Use. We applaud you. Below, on the left, you'll see the Terms to which you must agree if you're going to use any of [our] services. Our lawyers wrote that, and that's the stuff that counts. On the right, you'll see how I'd explain it to my grandmother (hi grandma!) if she asked. I hope it helps make sense of this document, so that you can understand what you're consenting to."

An example of one of the regular contract clauses: "[The Company] may, without notice or liability, add, discontinue or revise any aspect, mode or design of the Services which include but not limited to the scope of service, time of service, or to the software/hardware required for access to the Services."

The "Simple Terms" explanation is: "Sometimes things change, even [The Company]." [1]

Now, I am not sure what a court would do with these "Simple Terms" if there was ever a dispute over the interpretation of the contract, but I like the effort.

So, maybe we can take baby steps. The next time you draft a release, a contract, a will or power of attorney, look at your precedent: is there a "doth" in there? A "hereto"? Maybe switch the "doth" to "do" and just get rid of the "hereto". And if you have "Know all Men" anywhere in your precedent, I suggest it is time to retire that document and enter the 21st century.

[1] The full terms of service can be found here.

3 Comments
Kate McGlashan
5/26/2021 06:11:36 pm

I came across your post when Googling "Know all men by these presents." I agree with your points, but I don't see that the "plain language" accounting website is any better with their sexist, ageist "explain it to my grandma" bullshit. Some turd accountant had better be careful he's not condescendingly mansplaining to Katalin fricking Kariko.

Reply
Doug Klein
9/23/2021 04:03:16 am

I must say that I found your post quite refreshing.

As a certified paralegal, I often must "explain" things to clients when the attorneys I work under cannot seem to "find" the "simple" language to, as Denzel Washington's character, attorney Joe Miller, often stated in the 1993 movie "Philadelphia", "explain it to me like I'm a four-year old" -- not because they are unintelligent or lacking in some way, but because legalese is ripe with so many "huh?" moments.

I understand the implication of "know all men by these presents," but like you, struggled to find a way of "simplifying" it for a client. Even the attorney handling the case was stuck talking in circles like a nervous ninth-grader in debate class. So, to Google I went to try and find the least bloviated way of explaining it. (And even then, most of the links I found still circulated the same bloated chest-puffing eccentricities, when it can just be said "Anyone who sees [this] is made aware".)

By happenstance I came upon your post, and couldn't agree with you more about how we need to simplify -- or as other paralegals in my firm like to call it, "sterilize" -- legal language.
The overall reasoning in legalese being so complicated is because legislation is written in the same language.

So, our underpaid and over-billed paralegal argument for vanquishing such obsolete and arcane language that stems from 16th century British English, is simply this:
Wouldn't the "simple" answer be to write legislation in simple language, thereby allowing legal documents and other litigious matters to be in simple language?

Or, are we thinking "like a four-year old"?

Reply
BTR
1/10/2023 11:31:16 pm

Not to mention that “doth” (third person singular) doesn’t match the plural subject! If you wants to be pretentious and impress with fancy words, you’d better learns to conjugate them properly.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    2019 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner
    2018 Canadian Law Blog Finalist
    2017 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner
    2016 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner
    Erin C. Cowling is a freelance lawyer, entrepreneur, legal career consultant researcher & writer,  and President and Founder of Flex Legal Network Inc., a network of freelance lawyers.
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Book Reviews
    Career Advice
    Case Comments
    EDI Series
    Legal Events
    Legal Ghostwriting
    Legal Profession
    LSUC
    Rules Of Professional Conduct
    Series: Women Leading In Law
    Top 10 Posts
    Women And The Law

    Archives

    April 2022
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    RSS Feed

CONTACT ERIN
(C) 2014-2023 Cowling Legal. All rights reserved.
About 
Services
Publications
Blog 
Terms of Use/Privacy Policy

Please note I  do not represent clients of my own and I am no longer taking on freelance lawyer projects for other lawyers at this time. 
​Information on this website does not constitute legal advice and is for informational purposes only.
Accessing or using this website does not create a solicitor-client relationship. See website Terms of Use/Privacy Policy.
info@cowlinglegal.com 

3080 Yonge Street, Suite 6060
Toronto,ON
M4N 3N1 (appointment only)
Picture
  • Home
  • About
  • Freelance Lawyer Services
  • Legal Career Consulting
  • Blog
  • Speaking
  • Publications