5. Latin and French words: To add to the complexity of legal language, some Latin and French words have been transmitted to the legal brotherhood, and the meaning of these words can only be understood by lawyers. (2) (3) It is clear from the foregoing that the use of ornamental language is not in fact a single selling point, as it causes various types of problems and the use of simple and simple language is preferable. 21. Use short paragraphs. An author can improve the clarity of a regulation by using short, compact paragraphs. Each paragraph should deal with a single and coherent topic. Long, complex or technical discussions should be presented in a series of related paragraphs. 22.
Use a checklist and review your design for each of these principles separately. 19. Write short sentences. Readable sentences are simple, active, affirmative and declarative. The more a sentence deviates from this structure, the more difficult it is to understand. Long sentences are a fundamental weakness of legal documents. Legal documents often contain conditions that result in complex sentences with many clauses. The more complex the sentence, the more likely it will be to determine the intended meaning of the sentence. Latin was the legal language before the Norman conquest of England in 1066. After the arrival of the Normans, French became the dominant language of education, culture and law.
But the English survived in the population and then prevailed. In 1362, the Crown decreed that pleadings before the courts should be made in English. In the following century, English was prescribed in law; 1731 in brief. Thus, lawyers have become accustomed to combining the words Latin, French and English to express their meaning with more certainty – a habit that is clearly outdated. Creating plain language documents is an upcoming plan for new legal requirements, such as consumer finance document laws. Simple language guidelines and design practices can keep you from rushing or panicking later. It is also beneficial because: It can be concluded that simple legal language is advantageous over decorative and generic legal language, as it helps to avoid disputes, allows effective communication, saves time and money, and also helps to increase the business and profits of lawyers and brands that use such language, because it improves their transparency. Instead of increasing the complexity of the already complex legal world, as is done through ornamental legal language.
Simple legal language would also help the general public better understand the laws and the reasons behind them. It would also help reduce unnecessary disputes that slow down the court process and take a long time. The drafting conventions of the Conference on the Harmonization of Laws state: “A law shall be simple, clear and concise, with the requisite degree of precision and, as far as possible, drafted in ordinary language.” In any event, this argument is based on the idea that the existing legal language is perfectly correct. If this were true, there would be much less need for lawyers to discuss conflicting interpretations of a law or document. Authors should aim for clarity and precision, rather than choosing between the two. I said earlier that the plain language movement is now reasonably well established. In his early days, he made assumptions about the usefulness of simple legal language – without having tested the hypotheses at that time through empirical research. But now, some 20 years later, research has proven that the assumptions are correct.
The evidence is overwhelming. Clear legal language brings considerable benefits to lawyers, clients and citizens in general. It can be legally safe; this saves time and money; Clients and citizens have a better chance of understanding it; And most judges prefer it. The evidence points in the same direction. I would say that there is no serious reason to oppose it. 1. Ornamental language shows the skills of the draftsman, while simple language does not: according to this argument, the use of ornamental and complicated language shows the knowledge and skills of the writer, while drawing in simple language takes away the skills of the writer. This argument is not correct at all, because wording in simple legal language is an extremely difficult task. It takes a great deal of skill to present and present the exact and precise meaning of a document in simple legal language.
Even if a document is written in an ornamental language, but does not convey the core of the document to the reader, then all efforts to create such a document are in vain. 3. Double negations: In legal language, double negatives are often used in sentences and sentences. Not only does this make sentences extremely difficult to read, but it can also lead to misinterpretation of the document if it is not read carefully by the reader. Readers prefer familiar and concrete words. They prefer simplicity and consistency. They prefer authenticity to presumption, modern expressions to archaic words. Style must be clear, as evidenced by the fact that language that does not convey a clear meaning does not do exactly what language should do.
Clarity is ensured by the use of words. that are current and ordinary. (Aristotle, Rhetoric, The Words of Aristotle, W. Ross, ed. 1946) Plain text refers to a legal drafting that is well thought out, well organized and understandable to the client without interpretation: the language is clear, the legal concepts are explained and the technical terms are defined. Whether you call such writing the opposite of gibberish or legalese, or just sloppy work, you know it when you see it. 3. Plain English drafts are not correct: According to this argument, drafts created in plain legal English are not accurate or precise and cannot convey the exact meaning that is supposed to be communicated by these drafts.
This argument is wrong in two respects. First, the proper use of plain language in a document can make it accurate and accurate, as language is not difficult to read and can help communicate the core of such a document correctly and effectively, as noted above. Second, this argument assumes that documents or drawings created in ornamental language are precise and accurate, and effectively communicate the core of the document. That`s not true. The use of artificial terms, double negatives, Latin and French terms, and the unnecessary use of words and phrases that don`t really need to be understood makes the language complicated and the meaning vague. Writing is the synthesis of law and facts in a single form of language.