Japos, Myrna Joy JD- NT3

Reaction Paper: “Plain English Movement” by Carl Felsenfeld; and “Is Plain Legal
Language the Future?” by Law Boutique

The traditional language of law is undeniably complicated on its face. Perhaps, this
explains why ordinary people, and even law students and lawyers themselves, in either
occasional or many instances, encounter difficulty in interpreting the law.
The article “Plain English Movement” provides in context the nature, issues, and present
and future approaches of a movement that seeks to redesign the existing legal
language through using plain legal English.
Meanwhile, the article “Is Plain Legal Language the Future?” discussed primarily on the
advantages of using plain legal English, and why some legal professionals are reluctant
to embrace this new legal language style.

“Plain English Movement” by Carl Felsenfeld:

Felsenfeld narrated that using plain English would ultimately help ordinary individuals to
understand contractual terms with minimal aid from the legal technician. To effectively
implement this new legal language style, the creation of statutes to that effect was
widely encouraged. In fact, some states in the United States have already made this
pivotal step.

This movement is impressive. I agree that using layman terms in drafting legal
documents serves best the public and the legal personalities involved. However, it
should be noteworthy that extra caution should be taken before absolutely implementing
this plain English initiative as there are technical legal terms that can hardly be replaced
with layman terms. Forcing these terms to be translated into simple ones may create
further confusion and can possibly be legally prejudicial to those affected therein.
Moreover, the author noted that some states imposed penalties for those who failed to
follow the regulations in using plain English. I understood the purpose it tried to serve,
but I believe that imposing penalties for failure to use simple and plain language in
drafting legal documents is yet premature because there are still issues of this language
evolution that needs to be addressed. Unless these issues are carefully ironed out, I
believe that the imposition of penalties should not be made yet.
“Is Plain Legal Language the Future?” by Law Boutique
The author stated that lawyers may be hesitant to stray from old templates as they are
afraid of the risks of misinterpretation and inaccuracy. The author, however, pointed out
that the simplicity of the legal language is better preferred because traditional legal
documents are more difficult to interpret and understand.
The Law Boutique, plausibly expressed both points without conflicts. True enough,
resorting to simple language provides benefit of time and easy understanding compared
to using the more complex technical terms. Moreover, the author’s assessment on why
some lawyers are reluctant to embrace the propose change can also be apparently
observed in real-life. Old habits indeed die hard, and may take some time before one can
be comfortable to these changes.
Overall, both writers included interesting concepts and points that those who wish to join
or are already part of the legal profession may ponder upon. However, there are also
key points included in both articles that hopefully would be revisited to achieve minimal
risk in transitioning from the traditional legal English to plain English.
This new concept maybe gradually introduce in law school, in the community, and in
the various industries for adaptation and adjustment until such time that people would
be accustomed to following this new legal writing style.