By Rebecca Porwit
The plain language movement gained traction in the 20th century with a push to simplify legal and government documents. In 1979, the Plain English Campaign was founded in London to combat “gobbledegook, jargon and legalese.” This was also the year Richard Wydick’s Plain English for Lawyers was published.
But why is clear legal writing important?
Plain language makes texts easy to read, understand, and use, avoiding convoluted language and jargon. It’s especially relevant in legal writing because it helps people understand their rights and responsibilities.
Some believe that, by using plain language, you sacrifice precision to gain clarity. There’s a fear of “dumbing down” the text. To me, this is a false dichotomy: plain language is actually more precise because it rejects the ambiguities and obscurity of traditional legal writing.
Law firms, organizations, and agencies around the world are increasingly aware of the importance of producing clear, jargon-free documents. And let’s face it: it’s not only about safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. Plain language is also good for business because it promotes trust.
Language professionals who understand the principles of plain language are now needed more than ever. In this blog post, I’m going to give you some tips on how to make your English translations clearer and more accessible to non-expert readers.
Tips for clear legal writing
- Replace the jargon
It wouldn’t be a legal text without legalese, right? Actually, you’d be surprised at how much jargon you can avoid without diluting the original meaning.
Examples:
| Legalese | Plain equivalent |
| prior to | before |
| herein | in this [agreement, document, etc.] |
| in the event that | if |
| subsequent to | after |
| notwithstanding the fact that | despite |
| thereafter | later |
Note: some legal terminology is difficult to simplify. In these cases, you can add an explanation in brackets or a footnote.
- Cut the filler
Legal texts are often unnecessarily wordy. Perhaps this is a remnant from when notaries or other drafters of legal documents would charge per word. Thankfully, this practice has pretty much died out (food for thought for us translators?), but padding is still quite common in legal writing.
Examples:
| Original (Spanish) | Possible translation | Plain translation |
| A efectos de la aplicación de lo dispuesto en este artículo | Pursuant to the application of the provisions of this article | Under this article
-or- Applying this article |
| En consideración de lo cual, las Partes han llegado a los siguientes acuerdos: | Pursuant to the above, the Parties have hereby reached the following agreements: | In view of the above, the Parties agree: |
| Un número suficiente de | A sufficient number of | Enough |
- Break down long sentences
Endless sentences are, unfortunately, a staple of legal texts. When translating into your language, break these down into two or several shorter sentences. Garner (2001) recommends aiming for an average sentence length of 20 words in English writing.
Bonus tip: some sentences can be extra short, while some can be long – as long as you try to keep to that 20-word average. In fact, varying the length of your sentences improves flow and readability.
- Change the sentence structure
English favors frontloading, which means placing the most important information (generally the subject and the verb) at the beginning of the sentence. Don’t be afraid to change the order of the elements of a sentence to make it more digestible for the reader.
Examples:
| Original (Spanish) | Possible translation | Plain translation |
| Tras un largo debate, y teniendo en cuenta todos los puntos expuestos anteriormente, los consejeros adoptaron un acuerdo | After a long debate, and taking into account all the points set out above, the board passed a resolution | The board passed a resolution after a long debate, taking into account the above points |
| Solo mediante acuerdo escrito entre las Partes podrá el Empleado trabajar horas extra | Only by way of a written agreement between the Parties may the Employee work extra hours | The Employee may only work extra hours if the Parties agree in writing |
- Use the active voice
The active voice is usually more concise and easier to process for the reader. It makes your writing crisper and more direct. It also clears up ambiguity by specifying the subject of the sentence.
Bonus tip: don’t forgo the passive voice completely. Sometimes, it’s preferable to the active voice, and variety enhances your writing.
Examples:
| Original (Spanish) | Possible translation | Plain translation |
| la decisión fue tomada por las Partes | the decision was taken by the Parties | the parties decided |
| se resolvió por parte del Juzgado | the decision was taken by the Court | the Court decided |
- Avoid nominalization
Spanish legal writing is full of nominalization, while single verbs are preferred in English (especially plain English).
Examples:
| Nominal construction | Verb equivalent |
| provide a description of | describe |
| give a response to | respond |
| provide a justification for | justify |
| conduct an examination of | examine |
| be in violation of | violate |
- Use the possessive instead of “of the”
Another way to clean up your writing is to turn prepositional constructions into possessive forms.
Examples:
| Prepositional construction | Possessive |
| the decision of the court | the court’s decision |
| the arguments of the Parties | the Parties’ arguments |
| the reasoning provided by the judge | the judge’s reasoning |
| the risk profile of the company | the company’s risk profile |
- Be ruthless with doublets and triplets
Legal writing is full of traditional phrases that are redundant – no need to reflect this redundancy in our translation.
Examples:
| Original (Spanish) | Possible translation | Plain translation |
| guarda y custodia | care and custody | custody |
| se cita, llama y emplaza a | are served notice, summoned, and called to | summoned |
| debemos condenar y condenamos | we must sentence and hereby sentence | we sentence |
| se personen y comparezcan | to appear and be present | to appear |
| así lo pronuncio, mando y firmo | I do so decide, order and sign | ordered and signed |
| en nombre y representación de | in the name and on behalf of | on behalf of |
- Avoid “shall”
At best, it sounds stuffy and alienates your reader. At worst, it’s ambiguous and can get you in trouble.
“Shall” has many possible meanings in legal documents: obligation, future intention, status… and that ambiguity creates risk.
In general legal writing, one solution is to restrict the meaning of “shall” to “has a duty to.” However, this can still lead to confusion – is everyone on the same page? Would you have to add a disclaimer?
In plain legal writing, it’s best to avoid it altogether because there are perfectly good alternatives (like “must” or “will”).
Examples:
| Original (Spanish) | Possible translation | Plain translation |
| El Vendedor deberá entregar las mercancías en un plazo de 10 días | The Seller shall deliver the goods within a period of 10 days | The Seller must deliver the goods within 10 days |
| En este Contrato, “Servicio” tendrá el siguiente significado | In this Agreement, “Service” shall have the following meaning | In this Agreement, “Service” means |
| Este Contrato se regirá por la legislación de | This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of | This Agreement will be governed by the laws of |
| Nadie podrá utilizar el instrumento sin autorización previa | No one shall use the instrument without prior authorization | No one may use the instrument without prior authorization
-or- Do not use the instrument without prior authorization |
Final thoughts
Complexity and ambiguity make more room for error and misinterpretation. They create avoidable risks.
Clear language forces you to get to the truth of what is being said because you can’t hide behind any wordy or vague rhetoric. It forces you to understand, exactly, who is doing what.
Plain legal language empowers people and promotes accessibility. It’s also more persuasive and better for business.
I hope my tips help you with your plain English legal translations. And why not apply some of these principles to your regular translation work, as well? Let’s do our part to promote clear legal communication everywhere.
Sources and further reading
Garner, Bryan A. (2001). Legal writing in plain English: a text with exercises, University of Chicago Press
Lunn, Rob (2018, March 8). “Shall”, “must” or something else for obligation in legislation and legislation-type documents? Legal Trans. https://legalspaintrans.com/legal-translation/shall-must-or-something-else-for-obligation-in-legislation-and-legislation-type-documents/ (accessed July 30, 2023)
Nguyen, Tran (2015, January 22). Plain English Vocabulary, Academic and Legal English. https://acalegalenglish.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/3/ (accessed July 30, 2023)
The Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN). https://www.plainlanguage.gov/ (accessed July 30, 2023)
Wikipedia contributors (2023, July 27). Legal doublet, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doublet (accessed July 30, 2023)
Wydick, Richard C. (2005). Plain English for Lawyers (Fifth Edition), Carolina Academic Press
About the author
Rebecca Porwit is a legal and financial linguist based in Tenerife (Spain). She grew up multilingual, speaking English, Spanish, and Estonian and is an advocate for clear human communication.
When not translating and editing texts for her clients, she tutors students on the legal and financial translation courses of Academia de los Grandes Traductores. She also does volunteer work for Asetrad and MET.
Visit Rebecca’s website and LinkedIn profile.
While the intent of the plain language movement with respect to legal documents is laudable, the principles of this movement are applicable to the drafters of the source documents, not the translators of such documents, and I would be careful not to apply such principles to the translation of legal texts without explicit approval of the client. Unless otherwise instructed, the job of the translator (like that of an interpreter) is to represent the source language in the target language “as it is,” without simplifying complex text. Unilaterally changing the “register” of the target text to make the translation more readable to a layperson may have unintended consequences, and most linguists do no not have sufficient legal training to know which terms and phrases can be simplified without affecting the import (i.e., the legal meaning) of the text itself. A decision in this regard should be grounded in an understanding of the purpose of the source and target text documents, the status of the target document (legally binding, for information purposes only, etc.), the type of document in question, applicable law, and the end users (lawyers, general public, etc.), among other things. I would simply advise that translators use caution in this regard without direction from the client.
With all that said, I don’t consider all the tips you recommend (such as rearranging sentence structure or use of the possessive) to be an unacceptable conversion of the text into “plain language,” but are rather simply good translation practices.
Thanks for your comment, Steven. I’d like to clarify that, while I am an advocate for plain language and would love to see more legal texts drafted in plain English, I absolutely do not suggest we should apply these principles against our client’s instructions.
In fact, I see plain language translation as an added-value service – one that should be agreed upon (and charged accordingly).
I have been explicitly asked by several clients to apply plain language principles to my work. I’m seeing a rise in these requests, so hopefully my tips prove useful.