# What processes are unbelievably antiquated? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 26, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920 "2011-06-26T17:34:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/81 "2011-06-28T17:26:20Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > It wasn’t some secret cabal of crazed, handwringing law professors trying to figure out how they could make legal drafting as hard to understand as possible - used correctly, terms of art make drafting easier to parse, not harder. **pravnik** , nobody is arguing that lawyers and those involved in law can’t use terms of art or “jargon”. Every profession uses them to some extent. The problem is that in law far too many of those terms appear unexplained in material designed for laymen. If I planned to send you a letter about fundraising, I wouldn’t expect to throw in terms like LYBUNT or CFA or PG Calc expectation and expect you to know what those meant, though if I was writing to **tygre** who’s also a fundraiser I’d feel comfortable using them. And it would be insulting to you, as someone outside of my industry, to use those terms when you had little way of knowing what they meant. Likewise, if you were writing to another lawyer–certainly, use terms of art. But just as you’d expect me to write out “someone who gave last year, but not this year”, “what campaign, fund purpose, and type of appeal”, and “what is the present value of this planned gift as determined by PG Calc” when I was writing to you, don’t I have the same expectation that what you write to me is in clear English? I should add, as an aside, that legal groups in Europe are starting to see the logic in the above, and there is a “plain English” campaign in the legal community in the UK. I haven’t heard of anything similar in the US or Canada. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/82 "2011-06-29T01:24:40Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > **pravnik** , nobody is arguing that lawyers and those involved in law can’t use terms of art or “jargon”. Every profession uses them to some extent. > > The problem is that in law far too many of those terms appear unexplained in material designed for laymen. If I planned to send you a letter about fundraising, I wouldn’t expect to throw in terms like LYBUNT or CFA or PG Calc expectation and expect you to know what those meant, though if I was writing to **tygre** who’s also a fundraiser I’d feel comfortable using them. And it would be insulting to you, as someone outside of my industry, to use those terms when you had little way of knowing what they meant. Likewise, if you were writing to another lawyer–certainly, use terms of art. But just as you’d expect me to write out “someone who gave last year, but not this year”, “what campaign, fund purpose, and type of appeal”, and “what is the present value of this planned gift as determined by PG Calc” when I was writing to you, don’t I have the same expectation that what you write to me is in clear English? > > I should add, as an aside, that legal groups in Europe are starting to see the logic in the above, and there is a “plain English” campaign in the legal community in the UK. I haven’t heard of anything similar in the US or Canada. You’re talking about bad drafting and abuse of jargon when making a personal communication with a non-lawyer in a non-technical communication, which has nothing whatsoever to do with ralph124c’s bald assertion that the law itself is intentionally fashioned in such a way so as to make it intentionally confusing and inaccessible to a non-lawyer for no other purpose than to perpetuate business for lawyers by some sort of secret agreement. The former is regrettably bad lawyering and bad drafting; the latter is a ridiculous conspiracy theory, and, to use a term of art, total bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/83 "2011-06-29T02:54:06Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > While we’re at it, the idea that lawyers intentionally write obscure laws to make more work for lawyers is a canard I would love to see die. The goal of good legal drafting is clarity, not obfuscation. Why would I enter into a secret agreement to make my job as difficult, tedious, and incomprehensible as possible? > > Come to think of it, I think I’ve said that [before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13039872&postcount=67). For at least [five years](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7138538&postcount=15). Or maybe [six years](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6156206&postcount=16). Before I take a looksie at your 5-6 year-old posts can you tell me if they addressed these concerns voiced 6 years and 7+ months ago by Cynthia Glassman, then Chair of the SEC?: > **[SEC Speech: Remarks at the Plain Language Association International's Fifth...](https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch110405cag.htm)** (From link, emphasis added): > [@](#): > > …(a) problem is that the **securities laws** , which share as their underlying goal the disclosure of material information upon which the investing public may make informed decisions, **are sometimes written in dense legalese**. The complex language in these statutes is in turn incorporated into many of the Commission’s rules and regulations, which are then mirrored in the marketplace disclosures. As a nonlawyer - I am an economist - **I have a real problem with that. I don’t speak legalese and neither do most investors.** > > Based on numerous discussions I have had on this subject since becoming a Commissioner, it is clear that there is a difference in goals of the disclosing parties and the recipients of those disclosures. Very simply put, it is my perception that **disclosing parties and their lawyers** - be they mutual funds, broker-dealers, investment advisers, or operating companies - **view their disclosure obligations with an eye toward limiting their potential liability. Thus, the disclosures that they make, while often voluminous, do not necessarily provide information in a helpful, informative manner.** In contrast, the recipients want timely, complete, and useful information that is readily understandable. > > In my view, limiting the liability of the entity making disclosure is the wrong emphasis. **Instead, the focus of disclosure should be to enlighten investors.** > > … I reviewed some current disclosures by reporting companies. What I thought I would do is read you the disclosure, and then translate it into English. Although I paraphrase rather than quote the actual disclosure, I assure you that I am not making up the gist of these disclosures. > > **(1) Disclosure Number One Regarding a Mutual Fund:** \*\*No salesperson, dealer or any other person has been authorized to give any information or to make any representations, other than those contained herein, in connection with the offer contained herein and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied on as having been authorized by the fund, the fund’s investment adviser or the fund’s distributor. \*\* > > **(2) Translation:** You should rely only on the information contained in this document. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with different information. Speaking of business computing many of you have surely seen the employer to employee PC user caveat “Users can have no expectation of privacy” (40 keystrokes). Only a lawyer or a pedant could sign off on that, and prefer it to the simpler “Users cannot expect privacy” (26 keystrokes). So gimme a break, OK? Just gimme a break. Only in my dreams, huh? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/84 "2011-06-29T03:47:46Z")
I think at this point we’re in agreement that language should advance a topic of conversation rather than act as an impediment to it. Accordingly, before I can respond, you’re going to have to very clearly and simply tell me exactly what the hell you’re talking about, because despite admirable attempts at highlighting on your part I simply have absolutely no idea. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/85 "2011-06-29T04:01:23Z")
deleted post preamturely submitted ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/86 "2011-06-29T04:15:25Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > I think at this point we’re in agreement that language should advance a topic of conversation rather than act as an impediment to it. Accordingly, before I can respond, you’re going to have to very clearly and simply tell me exactly what the hell you’re talking about, because despite admirable attempts at highlighting on your part I simply have absolutely no idea. That is a ridiculous objection, and I think you know it, but here are the same six paragraphs unhighlighted: BEGIN QUOTATION (a) problem is that the securities laws, which share as their underlying goal the disclosure of material information upon which the investing public may make informed decisions, are sometimes written in dense legalese. The complex language in these statutes is in turn incorporated into many of the Commission’s rules and regulations, which are then mirrored in the marketplace disclosures. As a nonlawyer - I am an economist - I have a real problem with that. I don’t speak legalese and neither do most investors. Based on numerous discussions I have had on this subject since becoming a Commissioner, it is clear that there is a difference in goals of the disclosing parties and the recipients of those disclosures. Very simply put, it is my perception that disclosing parties and their lawyers - be they mutual funds, broker-dealers, investment advisers, or operating companies - view their disclosure obligations with an eye toward limiting their potential liability. Thus, the disclosures that they make, while often voluminous, do not necessarily provide information in a helpful, informative manner. In contrast, the recipients want timely, complete, and useful information that is readily understandable. In my view, limiting the liability of the entity making disclosure is the wrong emphasis. Instead, the focus of disclosure should be to enlighten investors. … I reviewed some current disclosures by reporting companies. What I thought I would do is read you the disclosure, and then translate it into English. Although I paraphrase rather than quote the actual disclosure, I assure you that I am not making up the gist of these disclosures. (1) Disclosure Number One Regarding a Mutual Fund: No salesperson, dealer or any other person has been authorized to give any information or to make any representations, other than those contained herein, in connection with the offer contained herein and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied on as having been authorized by the fund, the fund’s investment adviser or the fund’s distributor. (2) Translation: You should rely only on the information contained in this document. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with different information. END QUOTATION Although longer than the usual SDMB submission the quotaion above should really pose no problem for an educated reader, so I do hope you will give it another try, and not succumb to any temptation to dodge the issue of the pervasive legal jargon which subtracts so much value from so many enterpises. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/87 "2011-06-29T04:24:19Z")
I think your point might be better taken if Ms. Glassman hadn’t included _her own_ disclaimer in the speech: > [@](#): > > Although I paraphrase rather than quote the actual disclosure, I assure you that I am not making up the gist of these disclosures. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/88 "2011-06-29T04:30:04Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > That is a ridiculous objection, and I think you know it, but here are > the same six paragraphs unhighlighted: > > \ > > Although longer than the usual SDMB submission the quotaion above > should really pose no problem for an educated reader, so I do hope you > will give it another try, and not succumb to any temptation to dodge > the issue of the pervasive legal jargon which subtracts so much value > from so many enterpises. Again, I’m not sure what point you’re making (and I apologize if my post above was a little too much on the sarcastic side). Are you trying to say that bad drafting is common? Absolutely nobody would argue with that - that’s the entire point of plain language theory in drafting. The point being argued isn’t whether or not legal writing often includes bad drafting, it’s whether bad drafting is part of some secret conspiracy theory to make lawyers money. It’s not. It’s just bad drafting. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/89 "2011-06-29T04:39:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think your point might be better taken if Ms. Glassman hadn’t included _her own_ disclaimer in the speech: > > > [@](#): > > > > Although I paraphrase rather than quote the actual disclosure, I assure you that I am not making up the gist of these disclosures. Wait, _what?_ She’s complaining about the content of her own paraphrased text? ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/90 "2011-06-29T13:36:48Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Again, I’m not sure what point you’re making (and I apologize if my post above was a little too much on the sarcastic side). Are you trying to say that bad drafting is common? Absolutely nobody would argue with that - that’s the entire point of plain language theory in drafting. The point being argued isn’t whether or not legal writing often includes bad drafting, it’s whether bad drafting is part of some secret conspiracy theory to make lawyers money. It’s not. It’s just bad drafting. Nor was I positing some conspiracy theory. But it seems you’re saying the very “terms of art” which are perfectly acceptable in lawyer-to-lawyer communication are, when used in works written for laymen, can be handwaved away as “bad drafting.” I wrote a doctoral dissertation at Oxford in Tudor church history. When I can understand ecclesiastical legal documents from 16th century England (and half of those were written in Latin!) clear as day, but can’t understand a “simple” real estate legal document because of impenetrable writing, that’s a problem. It seems to me that “bad drafting” is the _rule_, not the exception, and it’s something that needs to change in the legal community. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/91 "2011-06-29T13:43:16Z")
Giving birth. Shouldn’t it have gone digital by now? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/92 "2011-06-29T18:08:07Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Again, I’m not sure what point you’re making (and I apologize if my post above was a little too much on the sarcastic side). Are you trying to say that bad drafting is common? Absolutely nobody would argue with that - that’s the entire point of plain language theory in drafting. The point being argued isn’t whether or not legal writing often includes bad drafting, it’s whether bad drafting is part of some secret conspiracy theory to make lawyers money. It’s not. It’s just bad drafting. I will take your word for it that you are not a conspirator. That does not rule out conspiracy as a motivating impulse in the behavior of a substantial fraction of our already grotesquely bloated legal profession. What I guess you refer to as the “plain language theory” has been in the works publicity-wise since at least the mid 1970s: more than 35 years, and about 30 years before the SEC Chair tried to make a public issue out of it in 2006. If the legal profession was really serious the change over could have been complete by the turn of the century. Lack of progress certainly suggests powerful resistance within the profession, although few if any lawyers are going to come right out and say that they are holding up reform on purpose. I do not think it is out of line to consider such behavior to be conspiratorial. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/93 "2011-06-29T18:24:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think your point might be better taken if Ms. Glassman hadn’t included _her own_ disclaimer in the speech: What Ms Glassman said is not a “disclaimer” (see dictionary nearest you). Since red highlighting causes illiteracy in some people, let me try underlining for emphasis this time: > [@](#): > > Although I paraphrase rather than quote the actual disclosure, I assure you that I am not making up the gist of these disclosures. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/94 "2011-06-29T18:33:21Z")
Here is something quite a bit more recent: [Legalese in NYC ca. May 2011](http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/05/legal_writing_0) > [@](#): > > … can someone defend this? I was poring over a simple form for a notary to fill out, saying that I had indeed signed the document it was attached to. The notary’s part reads > _On the \_\_\_\_ day of \_\_\_\_\_ in the year \_\_\_\_\_ before me, the undersigned, personally appeared \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument._ > Many are the problems, but my primary complaint is the first couple of lines. I couldn’t figure out, before about five readings, what was supposed to go in that fourth blank… So, Mssrs Legal Eagles, how about a status report on that “plain language” stuff you were telling us about. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/95 "2011-06-30T01:23:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > She wasn’t told that as a non-lawyer she was incapable of understanding the law. This is untrue. I am the only person on this board who paid full attention to every single post in every single thread about my legal issues: the fact is that I was indeed told that as a non-professional I was not capable, from the very first thread (2007, before the trial) to the last, many times, many ways, by many people, legal experts and non. My making this point is _ **not** _ in any way an invitation to reopen my legal issues for public discussion and dissection across the board. But Big T made an excellent and valid point, and a _true_ one, and it is incorrect to dismiss it with this _un_true statement. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/96 "2011-06-30T04:33:29Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Here is something quite a bit more recent: > > [Legalese in NYC ca. May 2011](http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/05/legal_writing_0) > > So, Mssrs Legal Eagles, how about a status report on that “plain language” > stuff you were telling us about. It’s pretty easy to get the gist of it. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/97 "2011-06-30T04:36:42Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > It’s pretty easy to get the gist of it. What do you put in the fourth blank? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/98 "2011-06-30T06:08:59Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > That’s ridiculous. You centre cell entries using the column descriptor when you declare a table. And EPS? Why are you using EPS? pdflatex (which is what everybody universally uses now, unless stuck in the 1980s) accepts PNG, JPG, and virtually every other modern image format just fine. Horizontally, everything gets centered by the column descriptor. NOT vertically, which was my problem. Really tables for me was a nightmare. Another problem that I had was trying to put numbers into tables that were is scientific notation, or had bolding in them, or whatever. There as well as the problem of getting the numbers out from Excel you had to do special formatting tricks to get the right numbers that you wanted. I think that without an interface to tables (and there were none around when I was working with it) it is simply unusable for anything remotely complex. You spend ridiculous amounts of time laying out tables that in any other word-processing situation is done in a few clicks. Secondly, at least when I was using it, pdflatex was not a good option. DVI output (which requires EPS) was far better. First, with DVI you could do inverse searches, which made fixing problems easier. Secondly for large documents pdflatex took ages to compile, which was annoying for just making small changes. It is a huge drain on productivity to have to wait a minute or two to see what the your document actually looks like, especially when you are laying things out. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/99 "2011-06-30T13:10:33Z")
> [@GargoyleWB](#): > > Naturally, once more than a dozen people attempted to use MS Access simultaneously, it chronically locked up, crashed, corrupted, etc. Excel isn’t a database. But you thought MS Access _is_? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/100 "2011-06-30T17:30:05Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > What do you put in the fourth blank? The name of the person who acknowledged signing the attached document (i.e. the “within instrument”), and whose signature you (as a notary) have verified: "On the 30th day of June in the year 2011 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared John Smith… " This wording is typical of a notarial certificate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920.md?page=6)