Describe 'legalese' in a word.
January 25, 2009 7:39 AM Subscribe
Describe 'legalese' in a word.
How do lawyers write - in a pithy adjective or two?
They are precise, grammatical, wordy, meticulous; people find their writing a bit boring and tedious to read, but at the same time the exactitude and accuracy of every phrase is clearly a standard of quality in the legal profession.
I need to capture both aspects of this in a couple adjectives for an essay, describing the aspects of 'legalese' that are commonly disdained with a more positive, appreciative connotation. Brainstorm please!
How do lawyers write - in a pithy adjective or two?
They are precise, grammatical, wordy, meticulous; people find their writing a bit boring and tedious to read, but at the same time the exactitude and accuracy of every phrase is clearly a standard of quality in the legal profession.
I need to capture both aspects of this in a couple adjectives for an essay, describing the aspects of 'legalese' that are commonly disdained with a more positive, appreciative connotation. Brainstorm please!
Exhaustive?
posted by dilettante at 7:56 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by dilettante at 7:56 AM on January 25, 2009
Stringent?
Exacting?
Less positive, but...punctilious?
posted by Beardman at 8:09 AM on January 25, 2009
Exacting?
Less positive, but...punctilious?
posted by Beardman at 8:09 AM on January 25, 2009
Exhaustive?
This. It doesn't cover all the effects that legalese has on people explicitly, but nearly all of it descends from the primal need to avoid leaving holes or uncertainty in documents. Some will note the difficulty of reading it and suspect it's deliberate, but I've always suspected that the simple need to be totally exhaustive would lead to nigh-unreadable-by-laypeople hyper-jargon even with the best of intentions.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:10 AM on January 25, 2009
This. It doesn't cover all the effects that legalese has on people explicitly, but nearly all of it descends from the primal need to avoid leaving holes or uncertainty in documents. Some will note the difficulty of reading it and suspect it's deliberate, but I've always suspected that the simple need to be totally exhaustive would lead to nigh-unreadable-by-laypeople hyper-jargon even with the best of intentions.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:10 AM on January 25, 2009
laboriously. heavy-handed. analog (vs. a heuristic approach). I like "exhaustive".
posted by iamkimiam at 8:14 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 8:14 AM on January 25, 2009
Best answer: Objective, probably. Legalese is confusing because it's not subjective, at least to the point that every word hold a certain and valuable meaning.
The bargain of legalese is that if you research enough, and you know enough, it will make sense—unlike poetry, fiction, or maybe even certain forms of music.
That compromise comes at the price of accessibility, but there is always a light at the end of that tunnel.
posted by trotter at 8:36 AM on January 25, 2009
The bargain of legalese is that if you research enough, and you know enough, it will make sense—unlike poetry, fiction, or maybe even certain forms of music.
That compromise comes at the price of accessibility, but there is always a light at the end of that tunnel.
posted by trotter at 8:36 AM on January 25, 2009
Boilerplate?
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 8:37 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 8:37 AM on January 25, 2009
Legalese is something between natural speech or writing and a computer language. It's meant to be read by humans, but it's also meant to be as precise and unambiguous as a computer program.
(No adjectives, but maybe it helps looking at it this way.)
posted by rjs at 8:37 AM on January 25, 2009
(No adjectives, but maybe it helps looking at it this way.)
posted by rjs at 8:37 AM on January 25, 2009
paranoid, defensive, liability-proof, tort-minded, contract-prone...
posted by Brian B. at 8:39 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by Brian B. at 8:39 AM on January 25, 2009
precise.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:41 AM on January 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:41 AM on January 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Pedantic, or pedantry? A level of detail and precision which strikes the speaker as necessary to communicate detail with sufficient precision, but which strikes the listener as verbose and (depending upon the power relationship between speaker and audience) either as oppressive or pathetic.
posted by MattD at 8:47 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by MattD at 8:47 AM on January 25, 2009
Attempted clarity
Like "attempt" crimes, sometimes clarity is actually achieved, but it's usually easier to prove attempt rather than the elements of the completed crime. They try to be clear, but sometimes that means adding more language which takes away from the plain, clear meaning of a legal document/agreement/statement.
It goes haywire when "clarity" is attempted by adding more and more words, more and more "terms of art" ... this often comes at the expense of speaking plainly. However, plain speaking can leave out possibilities or details which lawyers tend to be worried about.
The best explanation I've heard about this is the reason why lawyers are disliked by entrepreneurs: entrepreneurs focus on how their ideas and efforts will bring them success/money. Lawyers are brought in to write contracts do deal with how things should be dealt with if they go wrong (who gets how much money if there's a disagreement, who gets to make the final decisions, can the partners sell their part of the company, etc). Lawyers essentially think about what could go wrong, their clients think about what will go right.
When making a contract or advising a client about problems down the road, the clients don't want to hear about it. When dealing with those problems when they eventually do occur, the same client is upset at the lawyer about their failure to anticipate the problem.
The way this works out is that lawyers include loads of language with built in meanings beyond the plain meaning. That's legalese. Kinda.
posted by unclezeb at 8:49 AM on January 25, 2009
Like "attempt" crimes, sometimes clarity is actually achieved, but it's usually easier to prove attempt rather than the elements of the completed crime. They try to be clear, but sometimes that means adding more language which takes away from the plain, clear meaning of a legal document/agreement/statement.
It goes haywire when "clarity" is attempted by adding more and more words, more and more "terms of art" ... this often comes at the expense of speaking plainly. However, plain speaking can leave out possibilities or details which lawyers tend to be worried about.
The best explanation I've heard about this is the reason why lawyers are disliked by entrepreneurs: entrepreneurs focus on how their ideas and efforts will bring them success/money. Lawyers are brought in to write contracts do deal with how things should be dealt with if they go wrong (who gets how much money if there's a disagreement, who gets to make the final decisions, can the partners sell their part of the company, etc). Lawyers essentially think about what could go wrong, their clients think about what will go right.
When making a contract or advising a client about problems down the road, the clients don't want to hear about it. When dealing with those problems when they eventually do occur, the same client is upset at the lawyer about their failure to anticipate the problem.
The way this works out is that lawyers include loads of language with built in meanings beyond the plain meaning. That's legalese. Kinda.
posted by unclezeb at 8:49 AM on January 25, 2009
jargon. Mostly profession~specific words and phrases that have very precise meanings (open to interpretation, too!) that may clarify matters for those who know and understand "legalese" but may serve to muddy it up and make it incomprehensible for those who haven't been trained in it. It's a lot like a foreign language, IMHO.
posted by davoid at 9:09 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by davoid at 9:09 AM on January 25, 2009
obfuscatory
posted by notmtwain at 9:10 AM on January 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by notmtwain at 9:10 AM on January 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
Baroque.
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:14 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:14 AM on January 25, 2009
astringent, sometimes byzantine
posted by FelliniBlank at 9:17 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by FelliniBlank at 9:17 AM on January 25, 2009
exegetical?
posted by trip and a half at 9:55 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by trip and a half at 9:55 AM on January 25, 2009
Seconding obfuscatory.*
*For lawyers, legalese is, obviously, not obfuscatory. For the rest of us without legal training or practice, though....
posted by rtha at 10:02 AM on January 25, 2009
*For lawyers, legalese is, obviously, not obfuscatory. For the rest of us without legal training or practice, though....
posted by rtha at 10:02 AM on January 25, 2009
Response by poster: 'Exhaustive' means 'complete'. I believe it could describe a list or an inventory, for example, but not a style.
The sentence I'm trying to complete, by the way, is "my ____ writing style would make me a natural lawyer," or something like that. I don't want to claim to be obfuscatory, byzantine or anything with a similarly negative connotation; I also don't want to sound arrogant!
posted by xanthippe at 10:26 AM on January 25, 2009
The sentence I'm trying to complete, by the way, is "my ____ writing style would make me a natural lawyer," or something like that. I don't want to claim to be obfuscatory, byzantine or anything with a similarly negative connotation; I also don't want to sound arrogant!
posted by xanthippe at 10:26 AM on January 25, 2009
*For lawyers, legalese is, obviously, not obfuscatory. For the rest of us without legal training or practice, though....
So things are obfuscatory because you don't understand them? That's an interesting way to absolve yourself of the burden of ever trying to learn anything.
The adjective "obfuscatory" implies that the lawyers are making things intentionally confusing in an effort to reduce accessibility. Of course, that's not what's going on. What's going on is that most legal writing is not intended for people without legal training. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, but at the end of the day, it's really no different than field-specific journals whose audience is predominantly "insiders".
posted by toomuchpete at 10:43 AM on January 25, 2009
So things are obfuscatory because you don't understand them? That's an interesting way to absolve yourself of the burden of ever trying to learn anything.
The adjective "obfuscatory" implies that the lawyers are making things intentionally confusing in an effort to reduce accessibility. Of course, that's not what's going on. What's going on is that most legal writing is not intended for people without legal training. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, but at the end of the day, it's really no different than field-specific journals whose audience is predominantly "insiders".
posted by toomuchpete at 10:43 AM on January 25, 2009
Rigorous
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:49 AM on January 25, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:49 AM on January 25, 2009
Arguably, the adjective is unnecessary in the sentence you're trying to complete, as the language itself should make the statement self-evident.
However, as both a lawyer and a (former?) software developer, I'd agree that "objective" is a good word. But "objective" can have a value meaning that you might not want to convey (that is, objective = better), in which case you could drill down to more metaphorical words, i.e., comparing your writing directly to writing code. Contract drafting is, for me, exactly like writing software (same problems too... scope creep is a pain in the ass). Structured, defined, definite, coded, etc.
posted by socratic at 12:29 PM on January 25, 2009
However, as both a lawyer and a (former?) software developer, I'd agree that "objective" is a good word. But "objective" can have a value meaning that you might not want to convey (that is, objective = better), in which case you could drill down to more metaphorical words, i.e., comparing your writing directly to writing code. Contract drafting is, for me, exactly like writing software (same problems too... scope creep is a pain in the ass). Structured, defined, definite, coded, etc.
posted by socratic at 12:29 PM on January 25, 2009
Ironclad.
Careful.
Impenetrable (to both loopholes and to the casual reader).
posted by Rhaomi at 1:38 PM on January 25, 2009
Careful.
Impenetrable (to both loopholes and to the casual reader).
posted by Rhaomi at 1:38 PM on January 25, 2009
So far, I like painstaking (yeah, well), rigorous, precise, and maybe meticulous. Half or more of the suggestions emphasize negative qualities, contra the OP; remind me never to seek counsel here in writing a love poem, or it might turn the writing into a hate crime.
As to: "Arguably, the adjective is unnecessary in the sentence you're trying to complete, as the language itself should make the statement self-evident." I'd take the other side. I suppose the point is not just to make a claim about the quality of the writing, but to make a claim about the positive qualities possible in legal writing, to show a grasp and appreciation of same. Besides, hard to demonstrate this particular quality in a short essay.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 2:27 PM on January 25, 2009
As to: "Arguably, the adjective is unnecessary in the sentence you're trying to complete, as the language itself should make the statement self-evident." I'd take the other side. I suppose the point is not just to make a claim about the quality of the writing, but to make a claim about the positive qualities possible in legal writing, to show a grasp and appreciation of same. Besides, hard to demonstrate this particular quality in a short essay.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 2:27 PM on January 25, 2009
I think that, in the context you've provided, "precise" is the word you're looking for. The importance of being precise was certainly something that was drilled into my head in my 1L writing class. Note, though, that if this is for a law school admissions essay you better be showing as well as telling. ;)
posted by wuzandfuzz at 3:12 PM on January 25, 2009
posted by wuzandfuzz at 3:12 PM on January 25, 2009
"my ____ writing style would make me a natural lawyer,"
Words that fit here are logical, analytical, and considered.
posted by topynate at 3:43 PM on January 25, 2009
Words that fit here are logical, analytical, and considered.
posted by topynate at 3:43 PM on January 25, 2009
Response by poster: 'Objective' is almost perfect, but I want to capture the wordiness/tediousness/precision aspect as well, without adding a word.
Thanks for all the suggestions...
posted by xanthippe at 9:30 PM on January 25, 2009
Thanks for all the suggestions...
posted by xanthippe at 9:30 PM on January 25, 2009
Honestly, I'd say that lawyers write badly. In my experience, they rarely know as much about grammar as they think they do, and they often refuse to be edited.
posted by heffalump at 6:33 AM on January 26, 2009
posted by heffalump at 6:33 AM on January 26, 2009
Overwrought.
posted by lubujackson at 7:04 AM on January 26, 2009
posted by lubujackson at 7:04 AM on January 26, 2009
If you want to convey that you write well, get as far away from legalese and its negative implications as possible. Good lawyers do.
Wordiness and tediousness are rampant in legal writing. These traits do not make you a good writer or a natural lawyer.
Solid legal writing might be described as meticulous or incisive.
posted by *s at 10:14 AM on January 26, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wordiness and tediousness are rampant in legal writing. These traits do not make you a good writer or a natural lawyer.
Solid legal writing might be described as meticulous or incisive.
posted by *s at 10:14 AM on January 26, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older Need Sheet Music for Carol of the Bells by William... | Mic level vs. Line level FIGHT! Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by billysumday at 7:56 AM on January 25, 2009