Talk:Legal writing

Law Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Summerjs1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start of discussion

The exemplar phrases given all seem like plain English to me. Maybe not in everyday use, but I would think that 95% of English speakers would understand what is meant. 148.177.129.212 15:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some discussion of the SEC "plain English" directives would be useful in understanding efforts to combat legalese.

I have contributed significantly to the "Legal Writing" article. I am here now because the article has been flagged: "the neutrality of this article is disputed." I do not see a dispute here in the talk page. I do not know what "exemplars" the first entry above is referring to, and I agree that discussing the SEC's plain-English directive would be helpful. I will. So what is the dispute? Wschiess 14:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused that there is so little discussion here. For what it's worth, I thought this article well- and concisely written. It also looks about as neutral as this topic is going to get. Zajacd01

The whole article should be re-written in plainer language. it is currently written at Reading Maturity level of 13.7, far too difficult for the average American adult. The article should also be brought up to 21st-century standards. It is indeed very strange that there is no discussion of the audience of legal writing. The article should be written to emphasize that whatever the subject matter, legal writing should be written at a level appropriate for the target audience and the purpose of the text. For example, legal notices meant for the general public should be written at the 9th-grade level or lower. Many of the current statements are without reference or foundation, for example, the section that legal language is more unambiguous than plain language. Where did that come from? Bdubay (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US

Examples peculiar to the US should be extracted from the main article, perhaps saved for a "US Section". As it is, specific US articles are worth less than general English ones. 195.24.29.51 12:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wording issue

Could anyone help me understand what "you will indemnify <website name> or its affiliates for all claims resulting from content you supply" means? Am i passing ownership to them? Can i still post a photo on Commons after uploading it there? Thank you. -- Jokes Free4Me 07:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Licensing info

Your License to <website name>: If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant <website name> and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media. You grant <website name> and its affiliates and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such content, if they choose. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that you post; that the content is accurate; that use of the content you supply does not violate this site’s policies and will not cause injury to any person or entity; and that you will indemnify <website name> or its affiliates for all claims resulting from content you supply. <website name> has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any activity or content. <website name> takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted by you or any third party.

Two (2) things

I have two questions. First, should legalese redirect to Legal writing or Legal_writing#Legalese? It currently goes to the first, but I can't decide which is better. So, I'll take the easy way out and pass it off to others.

Secondly: why, why, do legal documents feel the need to write numbers in two (2) different ways? Legal documents, instructions, and anything written by ignorant people trying to write formally. "I have three (3) cats." Huh? It's as if they're trying to avoid any controversy with people who aren't very literate in English, while conveniently forgetting that legalese is incomprehensible to half of all native English speakers. Why? Any and all explanations, clarifications, justifications, rationalizations, or explanations will be greatly appreciated by one person or many persons, including, but not limited to, the following person: Twilight Realm 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is way too easy to modify 3 cats to 8 cats with a sharp pencil. The difference between $3000 and $8000 is not negligible, therefore it is tempting to modify the value, even if it be not right to do so. --193.179.187.70 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That does make sense. But then, why is the same convention followed outside of contracts--in instructions, etc.? Is it just an attempt at formality? Twilight Realm (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.89.168 (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't want the Legal English entry merged into the Legal Writing entry. Who does? Wschiess 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. They appear to be about the same phenomenon. Can you explain why they are not? --Alynna 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please explain. Jsmaster24 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article called 'Legal English' suggests a straightforward description of the salient features of 'Legal English'. The term 'Legalese' for many suggests an abuse of language by a professional group to maintain its privilege, comparable perhaps to priests using Latin for the mass in the Middle Ages. As such the focus of the two articles, or at least elements of the two articles, would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal English includes the specific field of teaching English to lawyers and law students who speak English as a second language. It should be kept as a separate category from Legal Writing. Intlawprof (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Mark Wojcik[reply]

Legal writing is the term of art used to define client-centered writing done by lawyers. There are many hundreds of law professors who call themselves legal writing professors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.115.139 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whereas removed: this is no Legalese!

The game was published under an "adults only" rating in the U.S., whereas it was possible to acquire the game at 16 years of age in the UK.. If we want to stress a weaker adversative "while", we may use whereas - this is not archaic to me! Formal yes, but not archaic. -andy 92.230.130.110 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as a way of introducing a proviso it is much less mainstream and some English speaking jurisdictions still use it in that form in their legal writing (eg "Whereas the parties have agreed to contract..."). Francis Davey (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Such' foolishness

The article states that 'such', 'as an adjective', is used only in law. Bah humbug! Such foolishness should not be accepted without protest. Publius3 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article confuses "legal writing" with "bad legal writing"

Legal writing does have distinguishing features, as the article points out, but the inclusion of #3 in the "Vocabulary" section (archaic words) and "Formality" confuse the issue. These two things are not necessary features of legal writing, though they are common features of *bad* legal writing. 69.121.6.97 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)captcrisis[reply]

'Bad legal writing' - that's redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.89.168 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this article itself a breathing example of bad legal writing?

I am sorry if the title is offensive to any contributors, because I am really not trying to hurt anyone's feeling. But as a non-native English speaker, solely reading the first few paragraphs of this article is frustrating enough, let alone understanding. Maybe “formality should give way to clear communication” in the case of this wiki entry too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeenNc (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]