Warning: If you are a lawyer, this post may infuriate you. If you’re not a lawyer, you may wonder what this has to do with family law. Just be patient and all will be revealed.
If there’s one thing that my fellow lawyers do that really irritates me, it’s the use of “legalese” in documents. You know what that is, it’s all of those five-cent words that makes it hard for regular people to understand what’s written or said.
I’ve really tried to think of a good reason to use legalese, but I can’t find one. There are several, in my opinion, lame reasons. I’ll get to those in a moment. But first, some of my most despised legalese words and phrases:
“Hereinafter.” Example: “John Doe (hereinafter, ‘Doe’) …” I think anyone who cares enough to read what you wrote is smart enough to figure out “Doe” is John Doe. Is hereinafter even a real word?
“Notwithstanding.” Just use, “despite.”
“This Honorable Court.” If your case is so weak that you need to kiss up to the court in your pleadings, you’ve got bigger problems than legalese, so I’ll give you a little bit of a break.
“Wherefore, premises considered.” This ends every pleading I’ve ever read, and I’ve never seen a court rule require it. Does anyone even know what it means?
“Comes now.” If there’s a “premises considered” at the end, I can guarantee there’s a “Comes now” at the beginning.
“Your [defendant, plaintiff, petitioner, etc].” I’m sure there are many parties the court does not want. I don’t think telling the court that the party belongs to them endures you.
As I said earlier, I can’t think of a good reason to use these words and phrases instead of ordinary English. I can, however, think of three not-so-good reasons:
1) It supposedly makes the writer sound smart. This is why I used these words and phrases my first year of law school. You know what, you’re a lawyer, and yes, you made it through law school. That requires some intelligence. You don’t need to show off. (this is closely related to the next reason)
2) Legalese justifies lawyers’ fees. I think this and the following reason are the two biggies. If you need to use fancy archaic writing to justify your fees, then I think you’re in trouble. While clients hire us for the knowledge we possess and somewhat for the words we know and use, I don’t think producing documents your client can’t understands helps your client.
3) That’s the way it’s always been done. Ah, yes—good ole operational inertia. For people who think this, I’ll refer you to Zig Ziglar’s story of cutting the end off the ham. Google it; it’ll do you some good.
What’s my point and what does this have to do with family law? Simple. If you’re the client, make sure you always understand what’s going on, especially if it’s a document that’s confusing you. Don’t think you’re dumb because you don’t understand legalese; most lawyers don’t, but we’re afraid to admit it.
Related posts:
- You Get What You Pay For Time to talk about one of the most controversial of...
- My Lawyer’s Cheating on Me! I’ve received several calls lately with people concerned that their...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
