Lawyers are often accused of many things, but amongst the worst might be speaking in “legalese”.
This sounds odd because you might naturally think that a lawyer should speak in something called legalese. But the phrase is never meant as a compliment.
A definition of legalese
AD: Need to transfer money or property owed by you to another person? Click here to use this form to easily transfer your property.
To understand why legalese is a bad thing, it is helpful to start with a working definition of legalese. There are lots of dictionary meanings for legalese but the one I have come up with is:
Legalese (n): language used in legal documents that is unnecessarily difficult to understand or verbose.
This is a broad definition of legalese. It doesn’t say that the defining characteristic of legalese is that it is difficult for ordinary people to understand (ie non legally-trained people).
This is because trouble with any deviation from plain language is that it is more difficult than necessary for everyone to understand – and that includes lawyers!
Lawyers and judges have been fierce critics of legalese for many years.
A famous example can be found in LaMore v. Ives, 977 F.2d 713, 716 (1st Cir.1992), where the judge memorably described a Medicaid statutory provision (42 U.S.C. ยง 1396a(a)(17)) as “a virtually impenetrable thicket of legalese and gobbledygook“.
Examples of legalese
Some classic examples of legalese which should be avoided in affidavit are:
- using Latin words instead of English
- using old fashioned or complicated words where simple ones would do
- using long, complicated sentences with multiple subclauses, lists or exceptions
- using legal (or quasi-legal) language where it is not necessary to do so
As you might have gathered by now, the best practice is to avoid any legalese in an affidavit.
Affidavits should be clear, as short as possible (meaning they have no irrelevant facts included) and use the words of the deponent. If you stick to those rules then you will never use legalese in an affidavit.