Replies

I agree with you in parts, but your take on legal language simply does not ring true.

I don't blame my plumber or my electrician because I don't understand how the pipes or wires in my house work. I hire a professional to do that for me.

I have no idea what you are talking about on the administrative law business. There can be civil and criminal reprocussions for a single act (i.e. drunk driving) and you may be confusing the two.

Good lawyering is an art and skill, and is no different than any number of professions that have grown more complicated over the years. (i.e. auto repair)

The language of English Common Law is English ... even if somewhat stilted in usage. Thus under our rightful common law, our courts would operate in a language which more people functionally knew and could comprehend.

Legalese is not truly English, but rather a convention or dialect or jargon whose factual effect––issues of intentions aside––is to render ordinary speakers of the English language in the dark once the lawyers start doing their thing.

You say that lawyering is an art and a skill and you are right; however, the art is largely in applying a language that seems like English but isn't really English. Elsewhere, I've written that "Precision at the expense of clarity is tyranny." when considering the effects of this use, or abuse, of the language.

It is not the same as with a plumber or an electrician since, speaking clearly and "disgronificator" issues aside, you don't need another plumber to talk to plumbers for you.

A comparable example in my own experience can be found by a study of optics I took up some time ago just for funsies.

At that time I discovered that optical engineering and theory text written before the late 1930s to be genuinely useful and relatively easy to read. The few text from the war era were harder to read because of a developing jargon which presumed that you knew it (the jargon) before you tried to read it. Post war text (even those written by the very same persons) were useless––being constructs of the jargon. Even placing the comparable older text besides the newer was little help. I would like to point out that neither the substance of the engineering nor the theory had changed in the least ... the math was no different except for a few issues with refraction at asymmetrical surfaces and the like (where the math had been improved marginally). The only functional differences between 1920 and 1950 were new materials, better manufacturing methods and the like ... none of which should have caused later text to become unreadable.

Similarly, the Constitution and all our founding documents are products of English Common Law and are therefore readable and understandable by ordinary persons; however, the use of legalese has made the law very difficult to understand so that only a fool now appears in court without a lawyer to speak to the other lawyers on any matter that isn't explicitly clear cut under the laws as they now exist.

..."I don't blame my plumber or my electrician because I don't understand how the pipes or wires in my house work. I hire a professional to do that for me."

I agree, but it must be pointed out that when it comes to the constitution, bill of rights and the declaration - the framers were purposefully very clear and concise about what they were writing and proposing. Their ideas were meant to be read and understood by everyone. That's *not* what your modern politician/lawyer is going to posit however. "We're the experts, you can't possibly understand the complexities involved, so we'll interpret for you." This is classic bullshit of the highest order.