ABSTRACT
This article discusses cases in which courts refused to enforce documents bogged down in legalese and poor design. For all its perceived reassurance, precision, or convenience, legalese runs against the law’s grain and comes with increased risk. And that risk grows with every stilted phrase, run-on sentence, word of jargon, or wall of dense text. The cases’ look-alike reasoning teaches an important lesson: lawyers who eschew plain-language drafting techniques are practicing in a manner at odds with decades of court opinions from across the nation. And they’re doing so at their clients’ peril.
The article also presents the flipside: plain language and thoughtful design enhance enforceability. Courts routinely cite the presence of clear, plain language — along with thoughtful typography and design — as grounds for enforcement.
While some readers may wonder whether the cases rejecting legalese were decided correctly, the article’s point is much simpler: the cases exist. They’re from trial courts and appellate courts. They’re from state courts and federal courts. And whether they’re right or wrong, the fact remains that those courts refused to enforce documents mired in legalese and poor design. They rejected traditional legal style. So when lawyers guard against language’s limitations, their stronger bulwark is a plain, accessible style. By using direct language within a reader-centered design, lawyers increase the odds of enforcement.
The article finishes with tips on how to reinvent legal documents to enhance clarity, including before-and-after examples capturing what revised provisions might look like.
Cooney, Mark, How Legalese Jeopardizes Enforceability (September 29, 2025), 22 Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 13 (2025).
Leave a Reply