From Strong Language » Irish Marketing Journal – Strong Language:
Old fashioned legalese isn¹t just frustrating to read, it can also lead to some pretty serious misgivings on the part of the people it is meant to serve. Surely it¹s time plain English made its way into our legal and
political system.
The men stand around wear ill-fitting hairpieces and dresses. The women do, too. Then a burly fellow pounds the ground with a big stick like Moses parting the Red Sea. The crowds in the hallway move aside to make way for… the judge.
The tipstaff and criers who lead judges of the Supreme, High and Circuit courts from their chambers to the courtroom create an impressive spectacle. They represent a tradition dating back to the founding of the Four Courts in 1796.
Back then, they had a more practical purpose.Tipstaffs carry a wooden or metal staff with a crown on the top. In the past, the crown was removed to reveal arrest warrants stored within the hollow shaft. It’s a quaint and fairly harmless tradition. However, another old-fashioned legal practice isn’t quite so charming or practical.
Legalese is causing great harm to our ability to communicate with one another.
Pomp and circumstance
Irish solicitors seem stuck in the 18th century, even when communicating with clients. It’s all pomp and circumstance. Legal letters, terms of engagement contracts, websites, marketing materials and even emails are sprinkled with Latin phrases, heretofores and thereins.
What legal practitioners don’t seem to notice is the way it makes clients feel and the barrier it creates between them. If a client does not understand a document they may feel stupid, ashamed or angry. This is not a great way to build client relationships.
The Lisbon Treaty is a classic example of legalese gone mad and we all know how the public felt about it the first time around. Here’s a sample: “Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.” Lisbon Treaty, Article 3b, Paragraph 3
Last month, Secretary-General of the European Commission, Catherine Day, said legal language was necessary for the Lisbon Treaty. “It needs to be actionable later on in court” she told the Pat Kenny radio programme.
While it’s true that laws are written more for legislators than for members of the public, Plain English legislation is becoming the international norm. That makes good sense. Laws are written to help govern the people. If you can’t understand a proposed law how can you be expected to obey it or to debate for, or against, it before it is passed?
Misunderstandings and misinformation
During the first Lisbon treaty campaign the government did little to explain the document’s significance or counteract the emotive posters of the No campaign. Maybe they didn’t know how?
The civil service has its own legalese dialect and our Taoiseach Brian Cowen is undoubtedly one of its native speakers. He’s from a political family so the poor guy probably grew up with civil-service-speak in his house.
Can you image the scene? His parents, when instructing the nanny to get the child some fresh air, may have said: “Going forward, the perambulations of the offspring will heretofore be undertaken with a childcare advocate in attendance. Said advocate will ensure the client obtains a measure of the appropriate levels of the two hydrogen-one oxygen combination as prescribed by parental recommendations.”
This communication style is highly infectious and trickles down to the government’s communications with Joe Public, their client. Even government bodies that are designed to represent and defend the people’s rights find themselves using phrases like “fettering their responsibility” without knowing why. They’ve been brainwashed with the jargon since they took their civil service exams.
What a feeling
When government officials, solicitors and business people use gobbledegook to communicate with their customers they are not doing their job. Professional jargon is often convoluted, elitist and weakens the writer’s intended message.
Client communications say something about the writer and the organisation. A jargon filled letter can provoke strong emotions in the reader. If the language is inappropriate to its audience, the reader may think the company is dishonest, incompetent or hiding something. Reputation is everything and clear communications ensure a lasting, and lucrative, customer relationship.
Legalese fits modern society about as well as those wigs fit barristers. It’s time to cast this tradition aside.
Margaret E. Ward is managing director of Clear Ink and a writing skills trainer for the legal profession. Blog: margaretward.ie
This post first appeared on Margaret E. Ward’s blog
Go to Source
