Legal English: Terms of Art, Legalese, and Plain English
Legal Terms and Plain English
Legal documents often contain language that is difficult for non-lawyers—and sometimes even for lawyers working in another jurisdiction—to understand.
Some words have a specific legal meaning. Others simply sound more complicated than necessary.
For legal professionals working internationally, knowing the difference is useful. It helps you understand contracts more quickly and, when drafting, choose language that is precise without making the document harder to read.
Terms of art
A term of art is a word or expression that has a specific meaning within a particular area of law.
For example:
indemnify — to compensate someone for a particular loss or liability
breach — a failure to comply with a legal obligation, such as a contractual obligation
consideration — something of value exchanged as part of a contract, particularly in common-law systems
force majeure — an exceptional event that may prevent a party from performing its contractual obligations
These expressions can be useful because they communicate a legally established concept efficiently.
However, a term of art can also cause problems in international work. A lawyer may understand a term differently from a colleague working in another jurisdiction.
When precision matters, the safest approach is often to define the term clearly rather than assume that everyone understands it in exactly the same way.
Useful expression
to spell something out = to explain something clearly and explicitly
The agreement should spell out exactly what happens if either party terminates the contract.
Legalese
Legalese is unnecessarily complicated legal writing. It often involves old-fashioned words, long expressions, unnecessary repetition, or sentence structures that make a document harder to understand without adding useful precision.
Compare:
Prior to the commencement of the meeting, the parties shall furnish the relevant documents.
with:
Before the meeting, the parties must provide the relevant documents.
The second version is shorter and easier to understand. It does not necessarily change the meaning.
Common examples include:
Legalese | Plain English |
prior to | before |
notwithstanding | despite |
in the event that | if |
pursuant to | under |
furnish | provide |
commence | begin |
terminate | end |
subsequently | later |
in accordance with | under |
at this point in time | now |
This does not mean that the simplest possible word is always the best word. Legal writing still needs to be precise. The aim is not to make a contract sound casual; it is to remove complexity that serves no useful purpose.
The drafting test
When you encounter an unusual expression in a contract, ask yourself:
1. Does this word have a specific legal meaning?
If yes, it may be a term of art.
2. Does replacing it with ordinary English change the legal meaning?
If no, plain English may be preferable.
3. Could a lawyer from another jurisdiction misunderstand it?
If yes, consider defining the expression or spelling out exactly what you mean.
Example
Instead of:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Purchaser shall furnish the Seller with the documents hereinbefore mentioned.
Consider:
Despite the previous provisions, the Purchaser must provide the Seller with the documents mentioned above.
Or, where possible, restructure the sentence completely.
The goal is not simply to replace every difficult word. Good legal English is clear, precise, and deliberate.
PRACTICE
Exercise 3 — Make it clearer
Rewrite these sentences using modern, straightforward English.
1.
Prior to the commencement of the services, the Client shall furnish the Contractor with all information necessary for the performance thereof.
2.
In the event that the Purchaser fails to make payment, the Seller shall be entitled to terminate the Agreement.
3.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions herein contained shall remain in full force and effect.
4.
The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that the aforementioned provisions shall apply.
Discussion
Consider these questions:
Are there legal terms in your jurisdiction that non-lawyers frequently misunderstand?
Which traditional legal expressions do you encounter most often?
When can simplifying legal language create a risk of changing the legal meaning?
Is it better to use a technical legal term and define it, or avoid the term altogether?
What makes a contract easy—or difficult—to understand?
Key principle
Don't make legal English complicated simply because it is legal English.
Use technical terminology when it adds precision. When it does not, say what you mean as clearly as possible.
