Introduction

Legal English, often referred to as "legalese," represents a highly specialized variety of English distinguished by its complex syntactic structures, archaic vocabulary and formal tone. It has evolved over centuries, influenced by Latin, Law French and traditional legal practices. While legal English is meant to be very precise and consistent so that laws and contracts are clear and reliable, it is often criticized for being difficult for ordinary people to understand. The layperson often finds legal documents difficult to understand due to their length, density and unfamiliar constructions.

The syntactic characteristics of legal English contribute significantly to its complexity. Features such as extended noun phrases, nominalizations, multiple subordinate clauses, the passive voice, and a lack of punctuation are widely prevalent. Although these structures are sometimes important for expressing detailed legal ideas, they can also make the text difficult to understand, causing confusion and lack of clarity. Moreover, legal language varies depending on the situation that written legal documents are usually more complicated than spoken legal language, which is generally clearer and easier to follow, especially during courtroom discussions.

In response to increasing concerns regarding the complexity and lack of clarity in legal documents, various initiatives have been introduced to enhance transparency and ease of understanding. Among these is the "Plain English Campaign" which promotes the simplification of legal and administrative language to make it more accessible to the general public. This article seeks to examine the syntactic features characteristic of legal English, investigate the underlying causes of its complexity and evaluate the measures taken to modernize and clarify legal writing. Through the analysis of authentic legal texts and the assessment of specific syntactic structures, the study aims to provide a deeper understanding of both the form and function of legal discourse.

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative descriptive approach to explore the syntactical characteristics of legal English. Instead of relying on primary data collection methods such as surveys or interviews, the study is grounded in a comprehensive textual analysis of authentic legal documents and relevant secondary sources. The legal documents analyzed include excerpts from treaties (e.g., the Treaty of Sevres), commercial contracts, insurance agreements, wills, statutory provisions and court transcripts.

In addition to analyzing primary legal texts, the study incorporates insights from academic literature and reference materials that focus on legal English and its unique grammatical characteristics.

The analysis follows a thematic organization, examining each major syntactic characteristic separately and illustrating its use through selected examples. Particular attention is paid to the structural differences between written and spoken legal English.

Results and Discussion

Legal language has distinctive feautures in terms of syntax that ordinary people find it difficult to understand because of its complexity. It is characterized by the frequent use of long and complex sentences that doublets, triplets, a lack of punctuation, unusual word order, repetition, extended noun phrases with multiple modifiers, prepositional phrases and both coordinate and subordinate clauses making   legal documents difficult to comprehend. For example, in legal documents such as commercial bank forms and insurance agreements, sentences are often structured in a way including multiple clauses:

The applicant agrees to assume full responsibility for the genuineness or correctness and validity of all endorsements appearing on all instructions and further irrevocably and unconditionally accepts responsibility for any loss, claim (including third party claims) or damages whatsoever that may arise as a result of inputting wrong information/instructionor figuresandin consequence agrees to holdthe bank harmlessandwithoutliability forany lossthe applicantmay sufferasaresultthereof and to indemnity the Bank on demand against all losses, cost (including legal cost), claims or damages suffered by the Bank in respect of same (excerpt from the terms and conditions of a commercial bank’s local currency fund transfer form).

The provision for termination hereinafter appearing will at the cost of the borrower forthwith comply with the same after the payment of this premium at any time during the period of insurance stated in the schedule (excerpt from an insurance cover form) (Amadi, 2020; 32-33).

Crystal and Davy (1969) point out that legal documents often contain long, complex sentences and sometimes a whole legal statement is made in just one sentence. Despite this complexity, many legal sentences tend to follow a predictable logical pattern, usually like: If X happens, then Y must follow. This shows that legal duties or actions are typically tied to certain conditions that need to be fulfilled first.

Take this example from a life insurance policy:

If the policy has not been dealt with, it will be converted into a paid-up policy.

Even this fairly short sentence includes elements that specify conditions or exceptions, known as adverbials. These can appear in various forms:

Clauses: when the policyholder applies

Adverbs: promptly

Phrases: within a reasonable period

Such adverbials often come at the beginning of a sentence, but they can also appear in other parts of a sentence. For example:

If at the end of the year the policy has not been dealt with... (Durant & Leung, 2016; 56).  

Upon such invitation being given the Council should immediately institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the dispute and recommend such action as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances. (Treaty of Sevres) (Matevosyan, Azizyan, & Vanesyan, 2019; 112).  

The complexity due to the use of comlex sentences arises from the inclusion of multiple subordinate clauses, embedded words and phrases that provide extra details and numerous modifiers.

ARTICLE 7.

The seat of the League is established at Geneva. The Council may at any time decide that the seat of the League shall be established elsewhere. All positions under or in connection with the League, including the Secretariat, shall be open equally to men and women. Representatives of the Members of the League and officials of the League when engaged on the business of the League shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. The buildings and other property occupied by the League or its officials or by Representatives attending its meetings shall be inviolable. (Treaty of Sevres) (McKay & Charlton, 2005; 111-112).  

Many syntactic feautures are more prominent in written legal documents than in spoken legal discourse which have distinct characteristics such as complexity, formality and specialized vocabulary. While spoken legal English contains legal terminalogy and style, it is generally simpler and closer to everyday English, making it easier for laypersons to understand, particularly in courtroom settings.

Spoken Legal English

Spoken legal English is mainly used in court trials and it involves presenting conflicting facts in an oral way. It follows a structured format:

Opening statement (e.g., “Clerk, read the charge to the accused”);

Presentation of evidence;

Closing arguments and verdict.

Lawyers (both defense and prosecution) use many interrogative sentences:

What did you see when you entered the kitchen? – (wh-questions)

Did you say you were alone that day? – (yes/no questions)

You said you were alone that day? – (indicative questions)

Witnesses, on the other hand, mostly use declarative sentences and simple Yes/No responses.

Moreover, in spoken legal English specific phrases are used in court in order to make

it carefully structured:

I put it to you (used to challenge a witness);

Honourable court (a respectful way of referring to the court);

Objection overruled/sustained (judge’s response to objections);

As the court pleases (showing deference to the judge’s decision);

My lord (addressing senior judges) / your honour (addressing judges in general courts) / worship (addressing magistrates who deal with less serious crimes) (formal ways of addressing judges or magistrates);

May it please the court (used when addressing the court);

You may approach the bench (a judge’s instruction allowing lawyers to come to discuss);

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye (a traditional phrase used to announce the beginning of a

court session);

I do solemnly swear (oath taken by witnesses);

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (oath wording);

Alleged (used to indicate something is not yet proven) (Amadi, 2020; 37).

The lack of punctuation

In written legal English, the one of the syntactic feautures is the frequent absence

of punctuation. It originates from older legal drafting traditions, particularly in these legal documents such as conveyances, deeds, powers of attorney and policy agreements. Although the less use of punctuation introduces ambiguity leading to misinterpretations, lawyers historically believed that the meaning of legal documents should be conveyed strictly only through words.

Another reason for avoiding punctuation in legal documents is the possibility of adding punctuation deliberately after the document is finalized in order to change its meaning. Despite these historical reasons, punctuation is more commonly used in legal drafting to enhance clarity (Imhanobe, 2002) & (Amadi, 2020; 33).  However, some legal documents still omit punctuation as seen in the following example:

Amissing Oxford comma in Maine’s labor laws led to a $10 million lawsuit by truck

drivers against Oakhurst Dairy. The law stated that overtime rules did not apply to:

"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of perishable foods." Without a comma after "shipment," it was unclear whether "distribution of perishable foods" was exempt from overtime pay or if only "packing for shipment or distribution" was exempt. The court ruled in favor of the truck drivers, showing how missing punctuation can have major legal consequences. (Victor, 2017). "Lack of Oxford Comma Could Cost Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute."         The      New    York    Times.  Retrieved        from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html.)

Nominalization

Nominalization, which is the use of noun forms instead of their verb forms, is another key feauture of legal English. For example, instead of to consider legal English uses to give consideration, to be in opposition instead of to oppose, to be in contravention instead of to contravene, to be in agreement instead of to agree. In legal language, many nominalizations come from Law French, often formed by adding suffixes like – al (as in try/trial, propose/proposal) or –er (like demur/demurrer, waive/waiver). Verbs can also become nouns by adding –ing, forming gerunds – for instance, Injuring the girl is unforgivable.

Legal texts tend to be lengthy and rigid due to the way words are formed. Although some argue thatlegallanguage shouldbe simplifiedusingplainEnglish, itisdifficult to remove complex noun forms (nominalization) from legal writing. This is because legal professionals do not simply say to arbitrate but instead use to go into arbitration, as arbitration refers to a legally defined process with specific rules. (Amadi, 2020; 34). This reflects the strict grammatical structure and traditional nature of legal English. This is also characterized with verbosity which is the use of several words instead of a single one.

Legal writing frequently uses nominalizations. A sentence like In the event of default in the payment of this obligation could be made simpler as If you fall behind and do not pay what you owe. Phrases like made assignment instead of assign are typical. Other examples include assumption of risk, will bar recovery of damage, failure of recollection, and after a consideration of. These are common and serve particular functions in legal contexts.

Legal writers often use nominalizations to avoid mentioning the subject which makes legal rules applicable to anyone. For example, California’s trespass laws use gerunds like cutting down, destroying or carrying away to describe actions without identifying specific people that the law is applied broadly.

However, this technique can also be used to obscure responsibility which is similar to the passive voice. Instead of clearly stating the defendant injured the girl at 11:30 p.m., a lawyer might say the girl’s injury happened at 11:30 p.m., or even just the injury happened at 11:30 p.m., not clearly stating who was responsible. Such use of language can be intentional, shifting focus away from the person at fault.

In other cases, nominalizations are simply used out of habit. For instance, the phrase failure of recollection is common could be more clearly stated as people often forget things which avoids unnecessary complexity.

Similarly, in credit agreements, phrases like in the event of default by the buyer use default as a noun. A clearer alternative would be if the buyer defaults, which conveys the same idea but in a more straightforward way (Chiu, 2021; 63-64).

Verbosity

One of the most criticized aspects of legal language is its excessive wordiness, known as verbosity. Verbosity refers to using more words than necessary in speech or writing. Legal drafters often rely on using wordy expressions, even though there are simpler alternatives. For instance, although is often replaced with despite the fact that. Legal writers are frequently criticized who overuse words, making legal documents unnecessarily complex.

Example:

The overuse of words further complicates legal documents, which are already difficult for laypersons to comprehend. The primary reason for verbosity in legal writing is caution that lawyers try to avoid ambiguties and loopholes. An American judge has said that “the legal mind finds magnetic attraction in redundancy and overkill.” (Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Reeves. (n.d.). All Federation Weekly Law Reports, Part 4, 383–384.)

Verbose language is often found in legal grants of rights. For example, instead of simply stating that someone has the right to use paths and roads, the grantee is given “the full right to pass and repass on foot or with or without vehicles along and over the foot paths and roads respectively of the said estate”. (Jammu and Kashmir State Land Grants Act, 1960). Moreover, the use of prepositional phrases contributes to this wordiness. Instead of simpler words like if, before, and after legal documents often use longer expressions like in the event that, prior to and subsequent to. Similarly, during the time that instead of during, until such time as instead of until, in order to instead of to increase the complexity and contribute to wordiness (Durant & Leung, 2016; 77).

Sir Matthew Hale, a former Chief Justice, humorously explained that clerks who drafted legal documents were paid per word, meaning longer pleadings led to higher earnings. This historical factor may have contributed to the tradition of verbosity in legal writing. Even today, lengthy legal documents remain common. In one case, a 2600-page legal pleading had to be condensed to just 360 pages. The judge criticized the original document for being contradictory, confusing and nearly impossible to understand.

Richard Wydick, an expert on legal language, supports clarity in legal writing. He suggests that lawyers, being cautious professionals, hesitate to replace old, redundant phrases since they have been effective in the past. Checking the validity of a new phrase takes time that lawyers value efficiency. However, Wydick argues that once a lawyer eliminates unnecessary verbosity, they will benefit from clearer communication throughout their career.

The use of pronouns

In wills and testaments, the use of the second-person(you) pronoun is avoided.

Instead, the first-person pronoun (I) is used since the document does not directly address or command the inheritors. For example:

This is the last will and testament of Mr.XYZ. I Mr.XYZ hereby bequeath my property known as and situate at No. AB Azikiwe Road, Aba to my first son James XYZ.

In the witness attestation section of wills and testaments, third-person or second-person pronouns are not used. Instead, nouns or noun phrases are preferred:

As at the date of Mr XYZ’s signature above, Mr XYZ declared to us, the undersigned witnessesthat the foregoing Last Willand Testament consistingof seventy (70) pages including this page expresses Mr XYZ’s true and sincerest wishes and will. Mr XYZ signed this Last Will and Testament in our presence and then we signed this Last Will and Testament in Mr XYZ’s presence and in the presence of each other at the address shown immediately above Mr XYZ’s signature (Amadi, 2020; 35).  

Anaphora

In legal documents, there is also less use of anaphora (the use of pronouns to refer topreviously mentioned ideas). Instead, legal texts frequently repeat nouns andnoun phrases to avoid ambiguity. Pronouns such as it, which are commonly used in other types of writing for referencing, in legal English it appears only in fixed expressions like it is agreed as follows where it does not refer to any specific noun but serves as a grammatical placeholder.

Indefinite pronouns like everyone, everybody and every person are used when a law applies universally and no one or nobody is used in prohibitions to emphasize impartiality. However, such generalization often create vagueness:

Be it known that by this notice/order everybody is prohibited from having anything

to do with the property known as and called No. TYK Azikiwe Road, Aba as same is the subject matter of a pending suit (Amadi, 2020; 36).  

Circumlocution

Circumlocution is another feauture seen in legal syntax. According to Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, circumlocution is the use of more words than are necessary, instead of speaking or writing in a clear, direct way. Circumlocution leads a person to avoid direct references and encourages the use of scholarly language and lenghty sentences, resulting in an indirect way of expressing ideas. In legal language, circumlocution appears in phrases like guardians of law instead of simply saying police or pillars of justice instead of judges (Sabnis, 2017; 82).  

Negatives

Furthermore, legal writing often uses too many negatives. This is because laws mostly focus on what people cannot do rather than what they can do. For example, in the Ten Commandments, most rules start with Thou shalt not, showing a preference for negative wording.

Negative words are not just not or never but also include prefixes like mis- in misstate and un- in unusual. Words like deny, forbid, except and unless also have negative meanings. Judges also prefer to give negative orders instead of positive orders. In fact, if a positive order is appealed, it is paused, but a negative order stays in effect (Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, 1983. (1983). All Federation Weekly Law Reports, Part 395, 485–486). (Chiu, 2021; 64–65).  

There is also the frequent use of the word any in legal texts. It often appears so much that it might seem overused, but this is intentional that it is used to eliminate ambiguity and ensure the sentence includes all possible cases or situations.

Nevertheless, in the event of Turkey failing to observe faithfully the provisions of the present Treaty, or of any treaties or conventions supplementary thereto, particularly as regards the protection of the rights of racial, religious, or linguistic minorities, the Allies Powers expressly reserve the right to modify the above provisions, and Turkey hereby agrees to accept any dispositions which may be taken in this connection. (Treaty of Sevres)

While a single negative in a sentence is manageable, multiple negatives can make comprehension difficult. In Standard English, double negatives typically cancel each other out, making the meaning unclear. When readers encounter one negative word, they expect the sentence to remain negative, but additional negatives force them to reinterpret its meaning. More than two negatives in a sentence can make it extremely difficult to understand. For example, a California jury instruction contains innocent misrecollection is not uncommon, which has three negatives in just five words. Too many negatives make legal texts complicated and difficult to comprehend.

The seperation of auxilary verbs from main verbs

In legal writing, auxilary verbs are often separated from main verbs which makes sentences difficult to understand. For example:

(a) … the vendor if called upon to do so will at the request of the purchaser or any

person deriving title under him, do all lawful assurances …

(b) The Insured shall within fourteen days of the loss or damage coming to his

knowledge and at his own expense deliver to the company a claim in writing

containing as particular an account as may be reasonably practicable (Sabnis, 2017; 87).   Because of this word order, legal texts become more complicated.

There has been a continuous effort to make legal English  easier to understand. The Plain English Campaign argues that removing old-fashioned words, simplifying sentence structures and using more punctuation would make legal texts clearer for everyone. They believe this would save time, reduce stress and costs, and even make lawyers’ work easier.

However, some legal experts believe that legal English is complex for a reason. They argue that its structure has been developed over centuries to ensure clarity, accuracy and reliability in interpreting laws and resolving disputes. According to them, keeping consistency in legal language is more important than making it simple for the general public to understand.

Although Plain English is slowly being introduced into legal writing, the traditional style remains strong. Lawyers still prefer using legal language to maintain their professional identity and to ensure that they are seen as experts in lawmaking, interpreting rules and handling legal disputes. As a result, despite some efforts to simplify legal English, many of its complex features continue to exist. For example, legal documents still include technical and old-fashioned language  as seen in phrases like:

‘Whether on principles of ubi jus ubi remedium the trial Judge was correct in not awarding damages to the appellants against the respondents.’ (Amadi, 2020; 39).  

Passive constructions

In legal writing, the use of passive constructions is both traditional and still seen. For example, British and U.S. enactment clauses begin with passive constructions like Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty or Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. These clauses are impersonal and passive voice is used to avoid specifying who is performing the action.

An example from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution shows passive voice: Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy, where the agent performing the action (such as the government) is implied rather than stated directly. Similarly, in jury instructions, phrases like You are instructed that… or The witness should not be discredited use passive constructions without specifying who should perform the action.

Legal texts often use the passive voice to shift attention away from the person or entity performing the action. The subject of an action is usually left out or mentioned later using a phrase like by someone. This style creates a more neutral and impersonal tone giving the writing a more formal and generalized tone. In addition, the passive structure improves the flow of sentences by introducing familiar information first and placing new or important details later which aligns with how readers naturally process information.

While passive voice is sometimes justified for clarity and to maintain objectivity, it also serves to obscure or downplay the identity of the actor, especially in legal contexts where the actor may be intentionally hidden. For instance, instead of saying The defendant injured the victim, a passive construction might present The victim was injured, omitting the defendant’s identity. This use of passive voice can be seen as a technique for confusion in legal cases, particularly when lawyers want to minimize the responsibility of their client.

Statistical data shows that statutes often contain many more passive constructions than active ones, suggesting that legislators prefer this style to make their commands seem more objective and authoritative. For example, in legal orders or judgments, the passive voice is frequently used to avoid first-person language and to make the action seem as though it comes from an impartial source: It is ordered…, rather than I order.

However, passive voice is less common in contracts, where it is important to specify exactly who is responsible for actions. For example, in a publishing agreement, active voice is used to clarify the duties of the author and publisher. Passive constructions might only appear in uncertain contexts, like specifying which laws will govern the contract that the actor (the one interpreting the law) is unclear.

The passive voice also has a habitual presence in legal texts, contributing to their complexity and imprecision. For example, a jury instruction might say, You must never speculate to be true any insinuation suggested by a question asked a witness which is difficult to follow due to its passive constructions. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out that using passive voice in statutes can make it hard to determine who is responsible for required actions, leading to confusion about the statute’s meaning (Durant & Leung, 2016; 58-62).  

The use of modal auxiliaries

Another common feature of legal language is the use of the modal verbs shall and will. In everyday conversation, will is used more frequently than shall. However, in legal writing, both are used quite often to indicate actions that will happen in the future. Shall is especially used when emphasizing that a future action is mandatory or required. Legal documents contain many examples of this usage.

ARTICLE 26.

Amendments to this Covenant will take effect when ratified by the Members of the League whose representatives compose the Council and by a majority of the Members of the League whose Representatives compose the Assembly. No such amendment shall bind any Member of the League which signifies its dissent therefrom, but in that case it shall cease to be a Member of the League. (Treaty of Sevres)

The first use of will refers to something that will happen in the future whereas the two instances of shall indicate that there is a required or mandatory action (Matevosyan, Azizyan, & Vanesyan, 2019; 112).  

Modal verbs in legal English express the speaker’s or writer’s attitude, perspective or judgment regarding the action or subject in a sentence. They are used to give directions, indicate possibilities, express possibilities or specify conditions and requirements. For instance, in injunction orders, modals such as must and may are used to clearly define what actions the Respondent is obligated or permitted to take or refrain from taking.

Commonly used modal verbs in legal contexts include: must, can, should, could, may, might, will, would, and shall.

Each modal conveys a specific legal function (McKay & Charlton, 2005; 65):

Obligation: must, shall

Ability: can, should

Probability: will, may, might

Permission: may, can

Suggestion: should

Request: would, might

Conditional sentences

Conditional sentences are commonly used in legal English, particularly during settlement discussions. For example, in the sentence If you pay within 14 days, Mr. Salleh will accept £100,000 in full and final settlement, the present tense follows if, while the second clause includes will, indicating that the offer depends on timely payment.

They are also used to issue warnings, such as: If you do not accept this offer, we will proceed to court. In more formal communication, should often replaces if to add politeness as seen in: Should you encounter any further difficulties, please inform me. Similarly, should can replace would to keep a professional tone: I should also make clear that this offer is conditional upon early acceptance.

In formal legal language, the structure were + to-infinitive may substitute if clauses as in: If we were to make an offer, there would have to be some assurance of confidentiality. This can also be rephrased by inverting the sentence and omitting if: Were we to make an offer, there would have to be some assurance...

Legal writing also uses various conditional conjunctions such as unless, until, although, provided that, on condition that, and in order that. For instance: We wouldn’t make an offer unless there was an assurance of confidentiality.

Finally, modal verbs are often employed to express possibility rather than certainty. For example: If you can assure us of confidentiality, we may put forward an offer (McKay & Charlton, 2005; 43-44).  

In legal writing, the definite article the is not commonly used as a determiner. Instead, legal texts tend to use the demonstrative pronoun this more frequently for that purpose. This use specifies particular items or actions with greater clarity which is important in legal contexts that precision is essential.

Another important feature that adds coherence to legal documents is the use of conjunctives that words which connect ideas. At the coordination level, the most commonly used conjunctions are and and or. In terms of subordination level, legal texts often rely on conjunctions like if, when, unless, that and which to link dependent clauses and express conditions, exceptions or clarifications.

In conclusion, legal English remains a specialized and complex form of language, shaped by centuries of legal tradition. Its distinct syntactic features, such as long sentences, nominalization, verbosity, circumlocution and a lack of punctuation, an excessive amount of negatives, the separation between auxilary and main verbs, contribute to its difficulty for laypersons. While spoken legal English is generally more accessible, written legal texts prioritize precision, consistency and formality to avoid misinterpretation.