Re: Legal English (was RE: Using M-dash and N-dash?)

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

"Paul Strasser" <paul -dot- strasser -at- ennovationinc -dot- com> wrote on 02/11/2004 
03:04:53 PM:
> (And, if it matters, the number of real estate forms in 
> California - at
> least at my old firm - has again doubled since I left. 
> Interestingly, the
> number of lawsuits, mediations, or arbitration involving my firm has
> declined despite an impressive increase in their sales. 
> There is no doubt a
> relationship between these two facts.)

But I will counter at least there's a plain English requirement. That 
actually probably goes a long way to avoiding future lawsuits as the 
documents don't become entangled with contradictory legalese (although 
completely straight forward if taken in light of court precedent). If 
there is no plain English requirement, the text used to 'fill the gaps' 
will be whatever legalese previously passed through the courts in similar 
circumstances with the interpretation desired.

Or, in the absence of previous jurisprudence, it will be the legalese 
brought about by the judges decision on the case they are trying to avoid 
repeating. And that legalese will be a nasty combination of several 
different cases quoted by the judge and then reinterpreted in the judge's 
own legalese.

On of the difficult steps in instituting plain English laws and contracts 
is linking the new plain English text with the previous jurisprudence.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer