This is my new favorite organization: the Center for Plain Language. I heard an interview about them on NPR this morning. Of course, their very existence is setting them up for a major Gaudere’s Law smackdown. (And I better run for cover, too, just posting about them!) But it’s a valiant effort and I applaud them!
As an instructional designer, this is one of my goals in life: to turn incomprehensible corporate policies and procedures into plain English. So I’m excited to discover people who share my dream!
I got 4/4. The last one was tricky though. Lucky for me I recognize statute of limitations language when I see it because of my job.
As for the topic of the OP, legalese is complex for a reason, and it isn’t just to keep ‘regular folks’ from picking up what’s being put down. It’s to block loopholes exploited by the very clever.
I got 4/4. The trick is to parse each clause independently, which I’m in the habit of doing from reading long, overly-qualified sentences in scientific journals.
I hope that organization is successful, because everyone should be able to understand any and all legal documents that they are asked to sign. However, I don’t think they are going to have much luck.
4/4. I’m kind of surprised, since blocks of text like that usually make my eyes claw at the back of my head trying to get away. I guess it helps when I have possible translations to work off of.
Exactly. Also, writing important Acts and Legislations “Simply” doesn’t make them better- take the Second Amendment, for example. It’s pretty simple- nothing especially complicated in there; “Because we need to defend ourselves, everyone has an absolute right to own and use weapons” basically.
Fast-forward 250 years and look at the various interpretations of that piece of relatively simple piece of legislation (for want of a better term), and the problems and disagreements caused thereof.
Now, if the second amendment said “As a well-trained, organised, and Government Approved Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed insofar as said arms are necessary for self-defence, hunting, sporting, or historic uses, or in connection with a person’s duties within said Approved Militia”, then it’s a lot less “simple” (and still “open to interpretation”), but it’s certainly clearer in intent than the one line Amendment as passed.
The point is, legislation regrettably needs to be complicated to make sure it covers everything it needs to cover. It’s definitely not a conspiracy to keep the lay person from understanding what the law is.
Number 2 is the tricky one. The use of the word “other” made me think they were excepting anyone who worked for them. In fact, that might be one of those loopholes.
I actually argue that, by using such complex language, they open up more loopholes, except that lawyers are taught how to interpret it. Why couldn’t they be taught how to interpret easy to understand word? That least example is a good one. The terms “temporarily disabled person” and “clock on the time to file” could be previously defined, as could sue and file. Then the lay person could actually see what is meant.
If you, who are familiar with statute of limitations legalese, had a bit a trouble reading it, how badly might the lay person read it? Heck, if it were a contract, I think it would make sense to say that the person signing could not understand what he was signing. I could see arguments that that would invalidate the contract. How can you achieve consent if you aren’t sure what you’re consenting to?
4/4. I have no legal background, save for facilitating the signing of contracts between customers and my employer, back when I was a sales rep.
I do agree that legalese is overly verbose for a very valid reason, which is to protect the interests of the author of the contract by anticipating any and all possible attempts to circumvent the letter and spirit of the contract. In today’s litigious society, one has to always assume that any contract, real or implied, and no matter how seemingly innocuous in nature, will be contested at some point.
That is not to say that some parties do not intentionally obfuscate documents and contracts for their own gain. But if I were presented with a contract that I couldn’t parse, I wouldn’t enter into it without legal advice.
The British have something called “Crystal Clear” language in government. The idea is something similar: yes, sometimes you need to use specialized language. But in order to tell people where to go pay a traffic ticket, there is no need to turn it into a lengthy explanation on the locations where one duly identified individual might be able to discharge his or her obligations with regards to the breaking and/or bending of city, county, country or nation-state wide ordinances and regulations with regards to the transportation of persons and materials and the machinery appropriate for such a purpose or purposes.
We’ve had the Plain English Campaign in the UK for a while now. Brochures/documents from banks and such can get the crystal mark seal of approval for well-written text.
4/4, but I negotiate Terms and Conditions for a living. The only one I found to be obfuscated was the Will, which at first made it seem as if the executors were also the recipients. That husband was a controlling bastard for sure! The poor woman couldn’t get control of the budget even after he was dead?!?
4/4, but I can read, by which I mean it’s all there in plain English, you just need to read it carefully and logically.
I think there’s a lot to be said for having two layers of this type of communication. You have the legalese layer that most people don’t see or need to see, you also have a plain language interpretation that the public use for guidance. Where the plain language interpretation differs from the legalese version, the legalese version is authoritative.
I was under the impression that’s how the Government in most places worked- there’s the actual legislation, in legalese for people who can understand it, and then there’s the helpful “Explanatory Brochure” version that gets distributed to the general public; with the legalese version being the authoritative one.
Take the Australian Switchover To Digital Television; the actual legislation behind it could probably make paint drying look like an Oscar contender, but the public get lots of nice colourful brochures, helpful stickers on TVs, and an Ad campaign explaining the whole thing in about 30 seconds (“Get a Digital TV or Set Top Box by 2013 if you want to keep watching TV”).
I got 3/4, and it would have been perfect if I didn’t rush on number three. I don’t think it’s hard to understand as long as you read slowly and carefully.
I got them too, when I sat down and read carefully. The thing is, this quiz was just a few lines. (Not to mention the fact that you had the multiple choice answers right there for reference.) I wonder how long it took everyone to decipher it? And how long would it take to decipher a much longer document, or set of documents? The first time I went through the quiz, I imagined myself as the average person sitting at a closing table when concluding the purchase of a home. Would someone faced with pages and pages of similarly difficult text reasonably be able to figure out what it meant under normal circumstances? Do we realistically expect closings to last hours and hours while people of average reading levels slowly and carefully wade through this stuff? (Hey, maybe closings need to be catered to cover a couple of meals over that time, in addition to the usual coffee and cookies served.) Moreover, do we reasonably expect consumers to be able to afford legal representation under such circumstances? And would the average real estate lawyer be able to reliably translate that language into plain English on the spot? A pre-prepared, plain-language version would at least give consumers a fighting chance to understand what they’re signing, without having to hire a lawyer.
Absolutely. I agree. So what we need to have is some mechanism to encourage, for example, companies that send out updates on the terms of your credit card agreement to also include a document with a plain language interpretation of the legal language. Problem is, I’m pretty sure that part of the intent of that legal language is to obfuscate the meaning of the agreement, so I’m not sure if that’s ever likely to happen without a big congressional stick waving over their heads. Which is why I support efforts of groups like this Center for Plain Language. I also support consumer education, including guides to common documents like the GFE and HUD-1 for real estate transactions.
Ironically, perhaps, the language you used to clarify/complicate the amendment uses plain, simple terms. An average person can reasonably expect to understand the terms self-defense, hunting, sporting, and historic. The problem is when documents substitute simple words like “now” (to use Napier’s example) with “at this juncture of maturization.” The pertinent question is: how much of this complicated language is there to make something legally tight and how much is deliberate obfuscation or even just laziness on the part of the writers?
Part of what I do every day is take legalese or business-speak and translate it into plain language for consumers and employees taking training. I would not suggest that a business ditch its legal documents or formal policies and procedures. But I do know that if I sit down with someone in management or the legal department it’s pretty common that we can find a way to re-word something – even while retaining the legal or technical terminology – so that its meaning is more transparent.
I think that’s what the US government was trying to do with the new 2010 Good Faith Estimate (GFE), to help consumers. But it took me three pages of explanation in a reference guide to clarify this explanatory document. Apparently, the government has a long way to go on this.
