Article: Here’s Why Legal Documents Are So Hard to Understand, According to Science

Science Alert

Legal documents are notoriously difficult to parse, and a new study attempts to explain why: the so-called legalese that dominates this kind of writing is apparently adopted to convey a sense of knowledge and authority.

Legalese is now so well embedded in our collective thinking that even non-lawyers use it, as shown by a team of researchers from the University of Chicago Law School, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the University of Melbourne in Australia.

In the same way that magic spells are often invoked in a rather grand and verbose style – to give them that extra air of importance – people also tend to apply the same sort of ratcheting up of complexity when it comes to legal documents, the study found.

“People seem to understand that there’s an implicit rule that this is how laws should sound, and they write them that way,” says cognitive scientist Edward Gibson, from MIT.

Previous research had shown that long definitions in the middle of sentences – known as ‘center-embedding’ – contributed significantly to the complexity of legal documents. Here the team wanted to explore the possible reasons for this center-embedding.

Gibson and his colleagues ran experiments in which 286 non-lawyer volunteers were asked to compose different types of writing: texts describing laws, stories about crimes involving those laws, and explanations of the laws to people from other countries.

The results showed center-embedding was common in law writing, whether or not the participants were asked to go back and edit their drafts later – suggesting that it’s not rounds of revisions that make legal documents complicated.

More plain language and less center-embedding were noticeable in the writing that wasn’t describing laws, so this is something that only really appears in legal texts. The next step is to find out the source – and the researchers want to look back into older legal texts to see where this style started.

“In English culture, if you want to write something that’s a magic spell, people know that the way to do that is you put a lot of old-fashioned rhymes in there,” says Gibson. “We think maybe center-embedding is signaling legalese in the same way.”

As far back as the mid-19th century, Dickens was writing about a lawsuit that had “become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means,” – and there has been little improvement since. That goes against the natural human drive to communicate more effectively and to be better understood.

So essentially, in legal writing, clarity is being sacrificed in an effort to sound more authoritative. The good news is this means there’s a simple solution.

“These results… suggest laws can be effectively simplified without a loss or distortion of communicative content,” the authors write in their paper.

The research team is hoping that the study leads to legal documents becoming more straightforward and accessible. Lawyers themselves don’t like legalese, and the rest of us have even less chance of making sense of it.

“Lawyers also find legalese to be unwieldy and complicated,” says Gibson.

“Lawyers don’t like it, laypeople don’t like it, so the point of this current paper was to try and figure out why they write documents this way.”

The research has been published in PNAS.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/heres-why-legal-documents-are-so-hard-to-understand-according-to-science

 

 

Even laypeople use legalese

Edited by Timothy Wilson, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; received March 18, 2024; accepted July 15, 2024
August 19, 2024
121 (35) e2405564121

Significance

Why are laws so complicated? Across two preregistered experiments, we found that people tasked with writing official laws wrote in a more convoluted manner than when tasked with writing unofficial legal texts of equivalent conceptual complexity. This tendency held constant, regardless of whether people wrote the document iteratively or from scratch. These results suggest law to be a rare exception to the general tendency in human language toward communicating efficiently, and that convoluted structures may be inserted to effectively signal the authoritative nature of the law, at the cost of increased reading difficulty. These results further suggest laws can be effectively simplified without a loss or distortion of communicative content.

Abstract

Whereas principles of communicative efficiency and legal doctrine dictate that laws be comprehensible to the common world, empirical evidence suggests legal documents are largely incomprehensible to lawyers and laypeople alike. Here, a corpus analysis (n = 59) million words) first replicated and extended prior work revealing laws to contain strikingly higher rates of complex syntactic structures relative to six baseline genres of English. Next, two preregistered text generation experiments (n = 286) tested two leading hypotheses regarding how these complex structures enter into legal documents in the first place. In line with the magic spell hypothesis, we found people tasked with writing official laws wrote in a more convoluted manner than when tasked with writing unofficial legal texts of equivalent conceptual complexity. Contrary to the copy-and-edit hypothesis, we did not find evidence that people editing a legal document wrote in a more convoluted manner than when writing the same document from scratch. From a cognitive perspective, these results suggest law to be a rare exception to the general tendency in human language toward communicative efficiency. In particular, these findings indicate law’s complexity to be derived from its performativity, whereby low-frequency structures may be inserted to signal law’s authoritative, world-state-altering nature, at the cost of increased processing demands on readers. From a law and policy perspective, these results suggest that the tension between the ubiquity and impenetrability of the law is not an inherent one, and that laws can be simplified without a loss or distortion of communicative content.