header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 July 2018 / Jonathan Morgan
Issue: 7801 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Eschewing antiquated loquacious verbosity

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7801_morgan

In the profession of the 21st century, it’s time to get rid of legalese & just say what you mean, writes Jonathan Morgan

Why do lawyers seem to be stuck in a rut of writing lengthy letters, using ten words when they could get their message across with three? Lawyers often send correspondence back and forth using long-winded and passive language—even when writing to customers, they tend to overcomplicate issues with lengthy phrases and words dredged up from a Dickens-style legal dictionary.

Has practising the law become about getting results for customers, or point-scoring with the use of archaic vocabulary? Surely we could be focusing most of our time on the core legal tasks if we were to correspond with clients using a friendly, conversational tone to get to the point quickly.

Stuck in the linguistical past

Lawyers have always had a love for phrases and expressions normally found only in 18th-century period dramas, and have always been susceptible to the charms of corporate speak—even as it goes out of fashion. ‘I attach herewith’ is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll