Legalese vs plain English

[Jaknik]

I anticipate being sued in the upcoming rest of the year and have been steadily reading how motions are produced and presented. And I'm increasingly uncomfortable with what I believe is a cumbersome method of communication.

How vital is it to try and emulate the legalese? I majored in English and believe that clarity is a priority. When reading over the examples of motions, it seems that the intent is to have the reader read the statement more than once, or to leave the reader scratching his head.

Does it matter?

[PERRYMASON]

just to weigh in; me thinks that the legal system has been devised sort of as an intimidate to spook off logical, clear speakers so that it can be run by the carnie. If one is brazen and confident enough to go against the system without hiring one of the co-conspirator, then often you must be taught a lesson. This worked fine for many years. But, now the internet has spread the butter of knowledge and peons like me can use the system to our advantage, as well. The devil is in the detail and finding a detail to shove into the legal craw works wonders. Judges protect their asses, too. The whole gig is blowing up on the cozy relationship of judges and collection guns.... and no judge will want to be on record of denying a citizens legal rights......... this is one of the most exciting fields i have ever jumped into. so, have a ball.....

[tropicaljo]

... I think that's legalese for "Yeah, it could matter."

[nascar]

How vital is it to try and emulate the legalese?

The trend in recent years has been away from "legalese," and toward more easy to understand, plain language.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a legal dictionary handy, because you'll need it when you run across terms you don't understand. You also need to be very careful not to use terms when you're not absolutely certain of their contextual meaning.