THE APPROPRIATE USE OF LEGALESE AND PLAIN ENGLISH IN
SOUTH AFRICAN LAW
submitted in accordance with the requirements
for the degree of
BACHELOR OF LAWS (HLLB1)
in the subject
ENGLISH FOR LAW STUDENTS (HENG130-1)
at
BOSTON CITY CAMPUS
1. Introduction
Access to justice depends heavily on the language the law uses. Practitioners
constantly choose between two styles: legalese and plain English. 1 Legalese offers
technical accuracy, whereas plain English promotes fairness in contracts. 2 Section 22 of
the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 3 compels the use of plain language to address
unequal bargaining power between suppliers and consumers. 4 Klare argues that
transformative constitutionalism requires law to be accessible to ordinary people if it is
to change society.5 This essay outlines how plain English differs from legalese, why
1
PN Stoop & C Churr “Unpacking the right to plain and understandable language in the
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008” 2013 PER/PELJ 515 516.
2
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 516.
3
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
4
S 22 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008; Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 518.
5
K Klare “Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism” 1998 SAJHR 146 168.
, legalese still matters, when plain English must be used, and why legal texts should be
comprehensible to their intended readers.
2. Plain English vs Legalese
When a document is drafted for non-lawyers, plain English is required. 6 This style
favours everyday vocabulary, short sentences and active verbs instead of jargon. 7 In
contrast, legalese is the conventional register used between lawyers. 8 It depends on
Latin phrases, outdated words like “aforesaid”, and paired terms such as “cease and
desist” to secure technical accuracy. 9 Stoop and Churr observe that although this
approach was created to eliminate ambiguity, it tends to confuse consumers and other
lay readers.10 Ultimately, the intended reader determines the choice: legalese for
practitioners, plain English for the public.11
3. The importance of legalese within the legal profession
There are still situations where legalese is necessary, especially when lawyers address
each other.12 Terms such as “subpoena” or “curator bonis” carry precise, established
meanings that prevent confusion in court and when applying precedent. 13 Using this
shared shorthand also saves time, because practitioners instantly understand complex
concepts without lengthy explanations.14 Moreover, courts expect documents to use
tested wording to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. 15 For these reasons, legalese
belongs in judgments, pleadings, and correspondence between attorneys. Completely
removing it would weaken legal certainty and the precedent system that depends on
16
uniform terminology. Legal culture, as Klare notes, includes technical legal language
that maintains the integrity of legal reasoning.17
6
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 520.
7
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 519.
8
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 516-517.
9
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
10
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
11
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
12
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
13
Klare 1998 SAJHR 155.
14
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 520.
15
S 22(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
16
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 518.
17
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 521.
SOUTH AFRICAN LAW
submitted in accordance with the requirements
for the degree of
BACHELOR OF LAWS (HLLB1)
in the subject
ENGLISH FOR LAW STUDENTS (HENG130-1)
at
BOSTON CITY CAMPUS
1. Introduction
Access to justice depends heavily on the language the law uses. Practitioners
constantly choose between two styles: legalese and plain English. 1 Legalese offers
technical accuracy, whereas plain English promotes fairness in contracts. 2 Section 22 of
the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 3 compels the use of plain language to address
unequal bargaining power between suppliers and consumers. 4 Klare argues that
transformative constitutionalism requires law to be accessible to ordinary people if it is
to change society.5 This essay outlines how plain English differs from legalese, why
1
PN Stoop & C Churr “Unpacking the right to plain and understandable language in the
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008” 2013 PER/PELJ 515 516.
2
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 516.
3
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
4
S 22 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008; Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 518.
5
K Klare “Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism” 1998 SAJHR 146 168.
, legalese still matters, when plain English must be used, and why legal texts should be
comprehensible to their intended readers.
2. Plain English vs Legalese
When a document is drafted for non-lawyers, plain English is required. 6 This style
favours everyday vocabulary, short sentences and active verbs instead of jargon. 7 In
contrast, legalese is the conventional register used between lawyers. 8 It depends on
Latin phrases, outdated words like “aforesaid”, and paired terms such as “cease and
desist” to secure technical accuracy. 9 Stoop and Churr observe that although this
approach was created to eliminate ambiguity, it tends to confuse consumers and other
lay readers.10 Ultimately, the intended reader determines the choice: legalese for
practitioners, plain English for the public.11
3. The importance of legalese within the legal profession
There are still situations where legalese is necessary, especially when lawyers address
each other.12 Terms such as “subpoena” or “curator bonis” carry precise, established
meanings that prevent confusion in court and when applying precedent. 13 Using this
shared shorthand also saves time, because practitioners instantly understand complex
concepts without lengthy explanations.14 Moreover, courts expect documents to use
tested wording to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. 15 For these reasons, legalese
belongs in judgments, pleadings, and correspondence between attorneys. Completely
removing it would weaken legal certainty and the precedent system that depends on
16
uniform terminology. Legal culture, as Klare notes, includes technical legal language
that maintains the integrity of legal reasoning.17
6
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 520.
7
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 519.
8
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 516-517.
9
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
10
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
11
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
12
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 517.
13
Klare 1998 SAJHR 155.
14
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 520.
15
S 22(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
16
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 518.
17
Stoop & Churr 2013 PER/PELJ 521.
