Any arguments against plain language?

The main argument is that plain language cannot convey the same meaning and nuances as traditional legal writing. This implies that legal writing or communications are meant only for those with specialized training. But this view does not take into account the following:

• Those working in legal areas who do not have the specialized training of lawyers also have to fully understand legal information.
• Members of the public do not have specialized training. They need to understand legal documents (such as leases, wills, summons, etc.) or the court/tribunal processes. They are not literate in legal matters or legal language and often do not have legal counsel to help them.
• If members of the public have low literacy levels in general, they are doubly affected when faced with specialized legal language.

Peter Butt, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Sydney, believes strongly that you can express all the legal concepts necessary using plain language. He gives the example of a 20-year-old plain language insurance policy being used by Australia’s largest car insurance company. There has been no litigation against their document in that time.³²

How to find out more about plain language

Appendix B, “Resources,” contains an extensive list of guides to plain language as well as other references in print and on the Internet.

32. Chuck Letourneau, “The Plain Web” (presentation to the Plain Language Conference, Toronto,September 27, 2002).