Can we lose the legaldegook and let plain language prevail?

For years, the use of legal jargon has stumped not just ordinary folks but even lawyers themselves. But now the campaign for clearer and simpler prose is picking up pace

- Himanshi.Dhawan

When Delhi-based Subhash Vijayan began law school in 2016, he struggled with the jargon in the case material. As a first-generation learner with limited English skills, wrapping his head around the mix of Latin-French-English terms proved to be a significant challenge. So, a year after passing out, he filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court seeking simplified language in court and government communication.

He pointed out, “The writing of most lawyers is: (1) wordy, (2) unclear, (3) pompous and (4) dull… We use eight words to say what can be said in two. We use arcane phrases to express commonplace ideas. Seeking to be precise, we become redundant. Seeking to be cautious, we become verbose. Our writing is teeming with legal jargon & legalese.” Few would argue with that, at least not someone who, while reading a legal document, has been struck with terror ‘ab initio’ (at the beginning in Latin) and felt that it be shorn of legalese ‘thenceforth’ with ‘mutatis mutandis’ (necessary changes).

But why do court documents and lawyers continue with this gobbledegook? Mumbai-based lawyer Rohan Banerjee, who specialises in securities law, says that part of the reason for the extensive use of legalese has been that it is familiar. “There is a temptation to continue with precedent rather than risk a new simpler turn of phrase. The fear is that moving away from standardised text could open up the lawyer and the client to varying interpretations, but this makes the language very convoluted,” he says.