Nida Ahmed

Legalese (noun): the formal and technical language of law and legal documents.

Most law students will remember their first encounter with complex, long-winding legalese. Often appearing on the first page of a textbook, that moment is memorable for all the wrong reasons. Already grappling with truckloads of new terminology, facing phrases such as “nonwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained” can feel frightening at first. For the uninitiated, this reads more like a puzzle than a rule governing something important. Many argue that these examples highlight the enduring tension between legal tradition and accessibility.

The push for clarity

The Plain English Campaign, founded in 1979, has long argued against “gobbledygook, jargon and misleading public information.” The campaign’s central message is that law should be understood by the people it governs, not only those trained to interpret it. Yet much of English law remains steeped in complexity. Statutes are often amended in a piecemeal fashion, creating patchwork texts that are difficult to navigate. 

In 2013, the Government published “good law” guidance, including a review conducted by the Office of the Parliamentary Council. It explored the causes of complexity in legal language and concluded that some causes are simply unavoidable, in a complicated world where law is used to balance competing interests and multifaceted issues. The guidance specifically outlined that having legal language which is easy to understand is a measure of effectiveness. 

Precision, however, is essential. As it stands, we simply could not afford vague language that could be construed in infinite ways. This would open up a whole new channel of disputes on an already burdened system. For example, in property law, ‘terms of years absolute’ sounds much like it could be simplified to mean a ‘lease’, however this risks some of the contextual meaning to be lost in translation. ‘Terms of years absolute’ insinuates a certain fixed period, which could in turn have consequences on interest payments and other such conditions. Over-simplification could risk watering down the meaning of the law, which in turn could jeopardize the very clarity we are seeking to achieve.   

The issue of accessibility

Up to this point, the debate has centred on whether precision must always outweigh clarity. But accessibility is just as critical, and here the case against legalese becomes far harder to ignore.

Complex legal language does more damage than just frustrating students or practitioners – it has a direct financial cost. Individuals are often forced to pay hundreds of pounds for a professional to interpret rules that govern their everyday lives. In an age where information is instantly available, the idea that citizens cannot search for a statute and understand it themselves feels increasingly outdated. 

As younger lawyers enter the profession (Hello, Gen-Z!), the appetite for unnecessary complexity is fading. The enforcement of decades‑old language risks becoming less a mark of tradition and more a barrier to justice. Communities already facing socio‑economic obstacles are the ones most affected. When the law is written in a way that only specialists can decode, it fences off justice from those who need it most.

Conclusion 

English law is under constant scrutiny and has been subject to reform on countless occasions to keep pace with modern realities. Clarity is one measure of an effective law, but it is not the only one. Consistency in application and reduced ambiguity are equally important when we think about a law and its usability. Perhaps the truth is that law will always carry complex language because it governs complex realities. 

This debate has been ongoing for many years at many levels and for some in the profession, it risks throwing them into a deep existential crisis. Does complex language deliberately preserve the lawyer’s role as the interpreter? If statutes were written plainly, would the public need lawyers at all? Defenders of legalese argue that technical terms safeguard accuracy – concepts like “actus reus” resist neat translation. Critics will counter that mystification breeds dependency, keeping the law in the hands of the few. The Plain English Campaign insists that clarity enhances trust rather than diminishing professionalism. This back-and-forth debate is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, and the future of law may depend on us finding a way to strike a perfect balance between language that is accessible to be understood by everyone, yet precise enough to be enforceable effectively. 

Sources: 

Cabinet Office, When Laws Become Too Complex (2013) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/when-laws-become-too-complex/when-laws-become-too-complex> 

Plain English Campaign, Drafting in Plain English (Plain English Campaign, 2024) <https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/legal/drafting-in-plain-english> 

Cabinet Office, Good Law Guidance: Content, Language, Architecture and Publication (2013) (Withdrawn 2020) <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/good-law#content-language-architecture-and-publication>