These efficiencies are not unique to lay readers. Lawyers, too, save time and money when documents are in plain legal language. Lawyers find plain language easier to read and digest, cutting down time and effort for them almost as much as for their clients. These efficiencies have been documented in a study by the Law Reform Commission of Victoria (Australia). In the study, lawyers read counterpart versions of the same statutes, one version written in plain legal language and the other in traditional legal language. The time taken to understand the plain language version was between one-third to one-half less than the time taken to understand the traditional version¹⁵.

Assumption 3: that judges prefer plain language

This assumption is perhaps not as important as the others, but studies have borne it out just the same. Opponents of plain language have been heard to argue that plain legal language is "dangerous" because judges don't like it. The argument goes that documents must be drafted to be litigation-proof, and for this it is important to get the judge "on side"; and as judges prefer traditional styles of drafting, it is safer to stick to traditional styles of drafting. This argument seems (to me) rather facile; but even if we accept this view of judges, the evidence is that, given a preference, judges would choose plain language. Studies in the United States show that something like 80% of judges surveyed prefer pleadings to be in plain language rather than in the traditional, convoluted American style¹⁶. Interestingly, the same judges also thought that lawyers who drafted pleadings in plain language were better lawyers than those who stuck to traditional drafting. I don't know of any similar studies outside of the USA, but I would imagine that similar results would follow in most jurisdictions.