Legal language has become so notorious that it has entered the realm of popular humor. To Will Rogers once wrote that "the minute you read something and you can't understand it you can almost be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer. Then if you give it to another lawyer to read and he don't know just what it means, why then you can be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer." The Marx Brothers lampooned the language of the law in A Night at the Opera; Groucho and Chico successively lopped off portions of a contract relating to the party of the first part, party of the second part, party of the third part, and so forth ad nauseam.
Current lawyer jokes make a similar point:
After months of bickering, a divorce lawyer completes negotiations with the other side and calls his client with the good news.
"So what did you work out?" George asks the lawyer.
"Well, what it boils down to is that the party of the first part, to wit, George Smith, shall convey to the party of the second part and to her heirs and assigns forever fee simple to the matrimonial estate, including all property real and personal and all chattels appurtenant thereto."
"I don't get any of that," George muttered.
"That's right."
Even highly educated judges may be dumbfounded by legal prose. During oral argument regarding an insurance policy in 1969, Chief Justice Weintraub of the New Jersey Supreme Court confessed: "I don't know what it means. I am stumped." Justice Haneman admitted, "I can't understand half of my insurance policies," and Justice Francis suggested that the policies are kept "deliberately obscure."
Why can't lawyers write more clearly, concisely, and comprehensibly? We know they can communicate well enough when they want to. So why must so many important legal documents--documents that govern our rights and obligations as citizens, that allow a bank to repossess our house, or that determine who is responsible for damage to a rental car--be in virtually unintelligible legalese?
Legal language has become so notorious that it has entered the realm of popular humor. To Will Rogers once wrote that "the minute you read something and you can't understand it you can almost be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer. Then if you give it to another lawyer to read and he don't know just what it means, why then you can be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer." The Marx Brothers lampooned the language of the law in A Night at the Opera; Groucho and Chico successively lopped off portions of a contract relating to the party of the first part, party of the second part, party of the third part, and so forth ad nauseam. Current lawyer jokes make a similar point: After months of bickering, a divorce lawyer completes negotiations with the other side and calls his client with the good news. "So what did you work out?" George asks the lawyer. "Well, what it boils down to is that the party of the first part, to wit, George Smith, shall convey to the party of the second part and to her heirs and assigns forever fee simple to the matrimonial estate, including all property real and personal and all chattels appurtenant thereto." "I don't get any of that," George muttered. "That's right." Even highly educated judges may be dumbfounded by legal prose. During oral argument regarding an insurance policy in 1969, Chief Justice Weintraub of the New Jersey Supreme Court confessed: "I don't know what it means. I am stumped." Justice Haneman admitted, "I can't understand half of my insurance policies," and Justice Francis suggested that the policies are kept "deliberately obscure."
Why can't lawyers write more clearly, concisely, and comprehensibly? We know they can communicate well enough when they want to. So why must so many important legal documents--documents that govern our rights and obligations as citizens, that allow a bank to repossess our house, or that determine who is responsible for damage to a rental car--be in virtually unintelligible legalese?
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..