Intersection 14: Law is a foreign language, and infotech legalese its dialect

Before I entertained thoughts of entering law school, I’d always believed that lawyer-speak was unnecessarily verbose and annoyingly redundant. Five years into law school, I’ve come to understand the language, its jargon, its nuances. But I still believe it’s unnecessarily verbose and annoyingly redundant. If I were formally educated and trained in linguistics or the English language, I surmise I can argue for a slimmer, leaner use of the language.

Nevertheless, the language is what it is, and we have to adapt to effectively use it. It’s as if law is a foreign language. And in many respects, it is. We have to learn its vocabulary. We have to learn its diction. We have to learn its syntax. We have to learn its rhetoric. We need to translate what appears to be gobbledygook to something that is utterly comprehensible and sensible.

The legal language expands as it interacts with other disciplines. And as it interacts with more and more disciplines, the more diff—er—challenging the language becomes. I remember a linguist colleague telling me that English is actually the most chaotic language in the world. Well, I think he got that part wrong.

Just look at law and technology. Tech itself has its own unique lingo. And as with law, its language is very intimidating (which probably explains technophobia). Technology is also a creator of new language. Tweet. Unfriend. Wer na u? Hr na me. (Ugh.)

As these two collide, legalese expands to accommodate the language of technology. So, lawyers not only contend with subscribe and signature, now they have to deal with digital signature. The term integrity used to be an abstract, an ideal; now, it’s actually a legal concept that is necessary in, among others, evidence of an electronic nature. The legal concept of “original document” has been expanded with the advent of paperless, electronic documents. And so on.

From one perspective, the “dialects” that collisions such as that of the law and technology create, definitely enlarge and enrich the language of the law. It makes the law a living, breathing entity, with an existence of its own. It must be understood, appreciated.

But from another perspective, these “dialects” complicate the language, much to the chagrin of those who study and practice it. It makes the law an intimidating, fearsome monster, with an existence of its own.

And yet, it must be understood, appreciated.

-- William G. Ragamat