In a recent project, we watched a group of jurors get tangled up in the verdict questions and the legal definitions that were supposed to guide them. Several of them said out loud that they simply “couldn’t make sense of any of it.” They understood the facts but were confused by the legal language.
And once that happens, everything slows down. Deliberations stalled: jurors paused, asked for definitions, and revisited testimony. People get frustrated. The energy in the room shifts from figuring out what happened to trying to decode what the court is even asking them to decide. The system begins to feel unfair, even when everyone is trying to do the right thing.
Why Complexity Backfires
Lawyers rely on traditional phrasing for all kinds of understandable reasons. It’s familiar. It feels “official.” And most of us learned the craft through templates that were passed down long before we ever stepped into practice. There’s a comfort in using the language we inherited.
But familiarity doesn’t mean effectiveness. Legalese – such as dense sentences, layered clauses, obscure vocabulary, and excessive passive voice - doesn’t make documents stronger; it undermines clarity for all readers, including the lawyers.
Judges have said the same thing in case after case. Courts routinely push back against provisions that are buried in blocks of text, written in tiny fonts, or loaded with jargon. In some situations, they’ve refused to enforce clauses altogether because the language was simply too confusing to provide real notice. Clear language serves as a fundamental component for maintaining legal fairness.
So while legalese may feel traditional or safe, it often works against us. It creates misunderstandings, wastes time, and, in some cases, weakens the very protections we think we’re preserving.
How We Can Do Better
Improving clarity doesn’t mean stripping away nuance or dumbing things down; it simply means writing with the reader in mind. Most jurors, clients, and judges appreciate language that gets to the point and respects their time and attention. That looks like cleaner sentences, natural vocabulary, thoughtful organization, and formatting that actually guides the eye instead of overwhelming it.
It also means letting go of the idea that “the old way”. Often, the safest documents are what an average person can read. Those are the documents that hold up in court, reduce disputes, and prevent jurors from getting stuck on the language instead of the law.
When jurors tell us they can’t understand the verdict form or the definitions, they provide essential feedback. Taking that feedback into account, we can create legal documents that carry the same legal meaning without creating unnecessary confusion.
Clear language doesn’t weaken the law; it allows the legal framework to operate as intended
Recent Articles by Our First Court Team:
Comments