The Problem with Traditional Legal Language
Traditional legal language — often called "legalese" — is characterized by: (a) archaic words ("hereinafter," "whereas," "heretofore," "witnesseth"), (b) Latin phrases ("inter alia," "mutatis mutandis," "ipso facto"), (c) long, complex sentences with multiple subordinate clauses, (d) double and triple synonyms ("null and void and of no effect," "give, devise, and bequeath"), (e) passive voice ("it is hereby resolved that..."), (f) excessive cross-referencing, and (g) formal structures that prioritize tradition over clarity. While legalese was developed to ensure precision and reduce ambiguity, it often achieves the opposite — making documents incomprehensible to non-lawyers and even to some lawyers.
The result: (a) clients cannot understand the documents they sign, (b) disputes arise from ambiguous language, (c) courts spend time interpreting unclear provisions, (d) access to justice is hampered when ordinary citizens cannot understand legal processes, (e) corporate governance suffers when directors and shareholders cannot comprehend notices, resolutions, and agreements.
Plain English Movement in Legal Drafting
The plain English (or plain language) movement advocates for legal documents that are: (a) clear — easily understood by the intended audience, (b) concise — using the minimum words necessary, (c) well-organized — following a logical structure with headings and numbered clauses, (d) accessible — written in everyday language wherever possible, while retaining necessary legal terms where they have specific legal meanings.
The movement has gained significant traction globally: (a) the UK has adopted plain language requirements for consumer contracts, (b) the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires plain English prospectuses, (c) Australia has implemented plain language standards for all government communications, (d) India's Supreme Court and various High Courts have endorsed plain language drafting.
Principles of Plain English Legal Drafting
1. Use everyday words:
| Instead of | Use |
|---|---|
| hereinafter referred to as | called / referred to as |
| prior to | before |
| subsequent to | after |
| in the event that | if |
| notwithstanding anything to the contrary | despite |
| with respect to / in respect of | about / for |
| null and void and of no effect | void |
| give, devise, and bequeath | give |
| cease and desist | stop |
| each and every | each / every |
2. Use short sentences: Break long sentences into shorter ones. Ideally: one idea per sentence, under 25 words. If a sentence has multiple conditions: use a numbered list instead of cramming everything into one sentence.
3. Use active voice: "The Board shall approve the financial statements" (active) instead of "The financial statements shall be approved by the Board" (passive). Active voice is clearer about WHO does WHAT.
4. Eliminate redundant words: Legal drafting traditions include many unnecessary doublets and triplets: "null and void," "terms and conditions," "rules and regulations," "due and payable," "authorize and empower." In most cases: one word suffices.
5. Use headings and structure: Organize the document with clear headings, numbered clauses, and logical flow. This makes the document navigable and allows readers to find relevant provisions quickly.
6. Define terms: Instead of using complex phrases repeatedly, define the term once and use the defined term throughout. Use defined terms in Title Case for easy identification.
7. Avoid Latin unless necessary: Use Latin only when the term has a specific legal meaning that cannot be expressed in English (habeas corpus, prima facie, res judicata, ultra vires). For terms with English equivalents: use English.
When Traditional Language Is Still Appropriate
Plain English does not mean abandoning ALL legal terminology. Certain legal terms should be retained because they have precise, well-established legal meanings that cannot be replaced without loss of precision: (a) "consideration" (Contract Act — cannot be replaced with "payment" as consideration includes more than money), (b) "indemnity" (specific legal concept — different from "compensation"), (c) "force majeure" (established contractual concept with specific legal implications), (d) "arbitration" (specific dispute resolution mechanism), (e) "habeas corpus," "mandamus," "certiorari" (constitutional writs with specific scope and procedure), (f) "res judicata" (specific procedural doctrine). The principle is: use legal terms when they ADD precision; avoid them when they only ADD confusion.
Supreme Court and High Court Endorsement
Indian courts have increasingly endorsed plain language: (a) The Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra emphasized that court orders should be in simple, clear language, (b) Various High Courts have issued practice directions recommending plain language in pleadings and court documents, (c) The Law Commission of India has recommended plain language for statutes and legal documents, (d) The Companies Act, 2013 itself uses simpler language compared to the Companies Act, 1956 — though it still retains considerable complexity, (e) SEBI has adopted plain language requirements for offer documents and prospectuses — requiring a summary in plain language accessible to retail investors.
Practical Application — Before and After Examples
Before (Legalese): "Notwithstanding anything contained hereinbefore or hereinafter, in the event that the party of the second part shall fail and/or neglect to make payment of the said sum within the stipulated period as aforesaid, the party of the first part shall be entitled to, and shall have the right to, terminate this agreement forthwith without any further notice."
After (Plain English): "If the Buyer fails to pay the amount within the agreed period, the Seller may immediately terminate this Agreement without further notice."
The plain English version: (a) conveys the same legal meaning, (b) uses 25 words instead of 65, (c) is immediately understandable, (d) identifies the parties clearly (Buyer/Seller instead of "party of the second part"), (e) removes redundant phrases ("fail and/or neglect," "entitled to, and shall have the right to").
Challenges in Adopting Plain English
(a) Professional resistance: Some lawyers believe legalese adds gravitas and precision — and fear that simplification may create ambiguity, (b) Precedent dependence: Courts have interpreted traditional language for centuries — new language may lack established judicial interpretation, (c) Client expectations: Some clients associate complex language with thoroughness and expertise, (d) Statutory constraints: Some statutes prescribe specific language for legal instruments (e.g., "NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH" in conveyancing traditions), (e) Cross-border consistency: International transactions may require traditional English legal language for consistency with foreign counterparts. Despite these challenges: the trend toward plain English is accelerating, and modern practitioners increasingly adopt it as best practice.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy based on the latest laws and amendments, readers should consult a qualified professional before acting on any information provided. For expert assistance, contact us.