For some, “plain language” has connotations of “reduction” of language – a kind of dick-and-jane writing style moving towards the lowest common denominator. But this is a misunderstanding of the true nature of “plain language,” at least as practiced by skillful proponents. In skillful hands, simple language uses the techniques of the best writers to produce prose that communicates directly and effectively with its target audience. In 2008, the Cleveland Clinic managed to recover an additional $1 million per month by issuing simplified billing statements. Sabre Travel was able to reduce the number of help desk calls by 70% by writing simple guidelines in English for its information systems and saving the company more than $2.4 million. Joseph Kimble discusses these and other cases in his acclaimed book Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please: The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law. Not only are the review letters incomprehensible, but the information they contain is inadequate and misleading. They presented the number that, according to the wearer, is controlled without giving the appearance of showing how the wearer got to the figure. Notifications shall explain the calculation of the carrier`s payment to the payee only in a general form, provided that the reasonable charge is correct. This is despite the fact that the key elements of the overall calculation are the number of reasonable fees and the method by which it is determined. Plain language aims to produce documents that truly represent a meeting of the heads of two parties to the dispute and are so easy to understand that it never becomes necessary to challenge them in court.
Too often, lawyers write for the Court of Appeal when in fact they only need to provide a document that can be used and understood by a few clients. Most disputes are settled amicably, so the few cases that are brought before the courts are supported by plain language. If the language is clear and the meaning for the general public is clear, the judge will not intervene. I think there are four fundamental reasons to use plain legal language: 105 No equivalent study has been conducted in Australia. However, significant savings have already been made in the projects carried out during the Commission`s work on the all-English reference. A proposed rewrite of the traditional form for subpoenas and information will eliminate both unnecessary paperwork and unnecessary procedures. As a result, 26 staff units, including 15 in the police, will be available to be relocated to more useful areas. As part of a project on criminal forms related to traffic offences, two forms were eliminated and the redesign of the third form will reduce red tape and save four additional staffing positions. The combined savings are estimated to be between $400,000 and $600,000 per year. And, of course, there is no justification for using jargon for itself.
There is no justification for maintaining linguistic eccentricities that only serve to reinforce mysticism, not the legal effect. And yet, lawyers always introduce documents with “while”. They “execute” them instead of signing them. They are more likely to “die” than to rent. They require a tenant to “repair well and sufficiently” if “repair” is sufficient. They declare that something is “null and void” if “null” is enough. They insist that “should” if the rest of the community uses “must.” [25] And so on. None of these sacred words and phrases is a true concept of art. Everything can be simplified, and some can be thrown away completely. Plain language legal drafting refers to a well-thought-out, well-organized and understandable legal drafting for the client without interpretation: the language is clear, legal terms are explained and technical terms are defined.
Whether you call such a letter the opposite of gibberish or legal language or just sloppy work, you know it when you see it. Here, the evidence is clear and overwhelming. Many studies show that simple language is “more effective” and therefore saves money. The corresponding clause in simple legal language: By “effective” I mean that documents in simple language are easier to read and understand. Many organizations confirm that they save significant amounts of money by converting their documents into plain language. Insurance is a great example: rewriting documents in plain language reduces customers` demands for meaning; This allows the company to use on-demand staff for other tasks. And by reformulating forms in plain language, error rates are reduced; This saves the company time and money and reduces customer frustration. Studies conducted by other organizations – including government agencies – show similar results. To give a clear example, a few years ago, British Post reformulated its email redirection forms.
Before the redesign, there was an 87% error rate when customers filled out the form. Royal Mail spent over £10,000 a week to deal with complaints and reissue fake forms. The new form has significantly reduced the error rate – so much so that Royal Mail has saved £500,000 in the next nine months alone. [26] Another problem is what to do with terms whose meanings have been defined in court. Lawyers are afraid to give up these terms if they lose the advantage of the judicial definition and risk the possibility of litigation over the meaning of new terms. However, we should not exaggerate the problem; The problem is not as big as many opponents of simple legal language seem to imagine. Research shows that in a given area of law, the number of legal terms defined by the courts is likely to be quite small. For example, studies conducted in the United States of America show that the proportion of terms defined by the courts in standard land sale contracts can be as low as three per cent. [24] This implies that you can change the remaining 97% without losing the benefit of judicial exegesis. And some of the three percent needed a trial for the reason they were inherently uncertain – those terms were best avoided altogether.
No, there must be a good reason to use a language that no one can understand. The problem is that the deeper you dive, the harder it is to find a good reason; This makes it all the more difficult to justify the dense, distorted and complacent writing style we associate with legal documents and laws. The use of plain language is therefore desirable, but how is it done? These seven steps are all you need to do to write effectively: we believe we need SimpleLaw, and simple legal language is a big part of that. We need to turn all the terrible legal documents into beautiful legal documents in simple legal language. We can help you use plain language in your organization. Laws and legal documents written in plain language will not eliminate the need for legal advice. Each statute must be read in the context of other statutes and the common law. No matter how clearly a law or legal document is drafted, a person needs a lawyer to explain the implications in their particular situation. Today, the legal system tends to use a “targeted” approach, which means that the intended context is taken into consideration more than the meaning of individual words. Since courts can often exercise discretion in the interpretation of a legal document, it is no longer advantageous to use a word that previously had a narrowly defined meaning, unless the word is also in the context of what the document is intended to achieve. Judges no longer register a case because it was not written in old jargon. When done right, a plain language legal document is as accurate as a document written in legal jargon.
In fact, a document in plain language is often even more accurate. Plain language leaves no room for ambiguity or lack of transparency. 107 The Government benefits from a simple English policy not only by clearly reducing its costs to the public, but also by better understanding that its senior managers have the objectives of the undertaking. Mr Brian Palfrey, a training and development consultant whose work with various government departments and agencies has focused on effective communication, stated in his opinion of 23 February 1987 [5]. These are particularly active in the United States, California, Michigan, Texas and Pennsylvania. Michigans and Texas Bar Association Journals regularly publish plain language columns. This is the key to the whole movement of simple language in law: that it is possible to express legal concepts in simple language, without loss of security and precision, even in complex areas of law. This is the assumption on which all authors of plain text are based. Without them, there would be no movement in plain language in the law.
Although no one knows the total cost of miscommunication, the information we have suggests that it is high. Writing in plain language is not easy, but it yields positive results. The latter reason is also confirmed by evidence – not only by anecdotal evidence, but also by empirical evidence from large-scale research. Non-lawyers prefer legal documents and plain language laws. The research includes a Canadian survey [43] that showed a widespread public perception that lawyers care little about whether they communicate effectively with their clients.
