From Jargon to Clarity: Understanding the Language of Law by non-Legal experts

Abstract

This paper investigates the intricate relationship between law and linguistics, grounded in the premise that lawyers work intimately with the English language. Despite this shared linguistic medium, legal English is often perceived as highly complex and inaccessible to non-specialists. Given that legal language permeates many aspects of human life, especially in situations involving legal processes, this linguistic gap may disadvantage individuals who are not legally trained. The study therefore seeks to examine the extent to which the language of law can contribute to lack of clarity, misunderstanding, disputes, and feelings of alienation among members of the public interacting with the legal system. The analysis draws on Darwin’s theory of legal obfuscation (2009) and Greenberg’s communicative theory. A mixed-methods approach was adopted: a quantitative component involving 150 targeted respondents who completed a ten-item questionnaire, and a qualitative component consisting of interviews with fifteen participants (ten legal practitioners and five non-legal participants). Findings indicate that features of legal English significantly hinder effective communication with the public, thereby reinforcing the need for simplification. The study concludes that adopting plain English within legal communication can help bridge the gap between legal professionals and laypersons, fostering improved understanding. The paper therefore advocates stronger interdisciplinary collaboration between sociolinguists and legal practitioners to support on-going efforts toward simplifying legal language. Such a bridge upholds a more profound cooperation between socio-linguists and legal professions. Interdisciplinary research of this nature can facilitate the task of simplification of the language of law.