18 comments Add a comment
Someone wrote a gripe a while ago about solicitors fees being to high. I'd like to elaborate on that a bit and in particular ask what exactly is it that you get for your money?
Words, that's what you get, and you get lots and lots of them. I strongly suspect the more you pay and the more complex the legal issue, the more words you get. We recently had a trust deed drawn up by our local solicitors when we were in the process of buying a house. The document was five pages long and its purpose was to acknowledge the fact that my partner would own the larger share of equity arising from any future sale of the house. It's not a big deal really. You have to have some legal mumbo jumbo in there to lay out all the ground rules I suppose, but five pages?
hereto, hereof, hereby, hereafter, hereinafter...
Taking a closer look at the document (yes, we always do that once we've signed it don't we?) I can see why it is so lengthy. Frequently dropping in rarely used and confusing words serves to pad the whole thing out as far as I can see. Words such as hereto, hereof, hereby, hereafter, hereinafter, forthwith, whereas, witnesseth, pursuant etc. are scattered nonchalantly throughout the text, presumably it makes it sound more impressive to other solicitors!
Although not an "A" student by any means, I consider that I have a half reasonable grasp of the English language yet I had to read some parts of this document several times before I completely understood what was meant. Goodness knows what a person who didn't make it through school would cope with it.
Just for fun counted the number of times "hereto" was repeated and it was at least 15 times; hereby and hereof were repeated almost as frequently. The last sentence was the best though, it read "IN WITNESS whereof the hands of the parties hereto the day and year first before written."
Hmmm... Good one that, fortunately the blank boxes for the signatures kind of gave it away!
So in this day and age of ultrafast communication isn't it about time that legal documents were updated as well? Come on all you solicitors and legal folks, I hereby ask you to please consider using plain English forthwith!
Leave a comment
Disclaimer:
The notice herein above wholly and exclusively represents the views of the above-mentioned parties on ...
But it is a different story when a legal document is highly convoluted as to befuddle us. I'm sure many are poorly written as will become a bone of seerious contention in court. A paragraph could be up to 25-30 lines obfuscated with wherefores and wheretofores and such, almost to the point of being a virtual (or real) run-off sentence. It's bad English, if you agree with me, and lacking in simplicity and readability.
I guess to read and understand a legal document is a matter of practice. We just need to wade through its quirks and quawks. I don't think it is any easier to understand Eliot's Waste Land as it is to understand Joyce's Finnegan's Wake without any background help and information. They are brutal, especially the latter.
All In all, I agree. Something can and should be done. I've heard of trained lawyers whose standard of English leaves a lot to be desired, maybe not in Britain. Yeah, indeed, very strange transition words and phrases!
P.S. Years back, the bank I deal with came up with a revamped version of chattel mortgage that is written for the layman, like me. It is so simple to swallow and digest, so idiot-proof, so we won't trip up. E&OE
If you think for a second that a contract has "helped the solicitor out" then you're a pillock. Not withstanding losing ten years of training and a good salary through disbarment, they face a prison sentence.
I don’t trust solicitors with their not-so-trusting ways of not telling you what you should be told but telling you things that don’t matter.
I have never come across a solicitor who hasn’t make a mistake in his favour or not misled me into interpreting things the wrong way, so I have little or no faith in these legalised criminals who think it is clever to mislead.
Sums up MPs and other figureheads, doesn’t it?
LOL ! Very funny indeed !
40% to party Aa, 25% to party Bb and 35% Solicitors Bloggins and Bustards.
Hmmm.... fair point!
Just merely pointing out the facts ... that during a court case with a jury, the Judge should explain to the jury exactly what the case is about etc. etc., and if any juror was bewildered by legal jargon, he only had to ask for an explanation! To my knowledge, Judges don't make a charge for this !
Nonny