Have you ever noticed how lawyers act like it’s some radical experiment every time a judge wants to write in plain language like a normal person? It’s wild. Legal writing is famous for being dense and unreadable. However, it becomes an academic debate when someone dares to make a judgment clear. Shouldn’t this be the norm? Why is clarity disruptive in an industry built on rules, fairness, and public service?
The Rare Unicorn of Plain-English Judgments
Take Justice Peter Jackson from the UK. A few years ago, instead of delivering a judgment packed with legalese, he wrote it as a letter—directly to the children affected by the ruling. He explained the decision in simple, human terms. Terms they could understand. No heretofores or whereases—just plain English.
And what happened? Legal circles went nuts. Some praised him for making the justice system more accessible. Others wondered whether simplifying legal language would “weaken” its precision. Never mind that people outside the legal profession finally understood what was happening in a case that directly affected their lives.
This isn’t an isolated case, either. In Canada, Justice Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court is known for writing judgments in a conversational tone—cutting straight through the nonsense and making rulings easier to follow. In the U.S., Michigan’s legal writing guru Bryan Garner has spent decades pushing for plain-English legal documents, arguing that they reduce confusion, speed up court proceedings, and lower costs.
So why won’t more judges follow suit and write in plain language?
The Gatekeeping Power of Legalese
Here’s the thing: an element of legal jargon is about power.
At its core, the law is meant to be understood by everyone. It shapes our rights, responsibilities, and protections. But instead of making laws accessible, legal professionals often shroud them in an impenetrable fog of Latin phrases and archaic wording. The more complicated a contract, ruling, or statute is to read, the more reliant people become on lawyers to interpret it.
Think about it:
- Why say inter alia when “among other things” works just fine?
- Why draft contracts where a single sentence runs 200 words, packed with clauses that could’ve been bullet points?
- Why use herein and thereof like we all live in a Dickens novel?
It’s not just frustrating—it has real-world consequences. Studies show that poor legal writing leads to higher legal fees, slower court processes, and more misunderstandings in contracts and regulations. According to Joseph Kimble’s Lifting the Fog of Legalese, simplifying legal documents leads to fewer disputes and significantly reduces litigation costs.
The (Slow) Movement Toward Clarity
Despite the resistance, the ‘write in plain language’ movement is gaining ground. Some courts and government agencies now require more precise wording in legal documents; even law schools emphasize readability in their writing courses.
For example:
- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has mandated that financial disclosures be written in plain English since the 1990s.
- The UK’s Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has worked to simplify legal statutes to make them easier for the public to understand.
- Canada’s Plain Language Guide for Legal Writing (yes, it exists) encourages legal professionals to use everyday words and logical sentence structures.
But the resistance is still strong. Many lawyers argue that plain language strips away legal precision. The counterargument? Legalese creates ambiguity just as often as it prevents it. If a contract requires three different lawyers to interpret it, maybe the problem isn’t the lack of legalese. Perhaps it’s the fact that it was written like a riddle in the first place.
Write In Plain Language: Why Judges Need to Lead the Way
Judges set the tone for legal writing. The legal profession will follow suit if they insist on judgments filled with outdated phrasing and convoluted structures. However, if more judges like Justice Jackson and Justice Pazaratz embrace clarity, the industry could be pressured to shift toward accessibility.
We’ve seen it happen in other fields. Medical professionals now write patient instructions in plain language. Engineers draft safety guidelines with readability in mind. Financial institutions have moved toward clear disclosures (because, you know, the law forced them to).
Law shouldn’t be the last holdout.
The Bottom Line: Let’s Write In Plain Language
If the legal system is genuinely about justice, fairness, and public service, then the people it serves should be able to understand it. Plain-language rulings shouldn’t be a rare headline—they should be the standard. Because a law that no one can read is one that no one can follow.
Written by Olivia Mercer, J.D.
Bio: Olivia Mercer is a legal analyst and former litigation attorney specializing in legal writing and accessibility.
