The title for today’s seminar is in the form of a question: “The Law: Why change time- honoured practices?” The question is directed, of course, to the issue of legal language – why change the language of the law? But to many of us here today it is rather late to be asking this question. For the fact is that the language of the law is changing, whether people (especially lawyers) like it or not. In many countries, the plain language movement in law is now well-established. In its modern phase, it has been going for over 20 years. In countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, legal practitioners and parliamentary drafters now feel no compunction whatever in boasting about the “plainness” of their documents and legislation. In other countries, such as England, Ireland and the United States of America, my impression is that many lawyers still have strong reservations about using plain language.

But despite this, I think that the question – “Why change time-honoured practices?” – is still worth asking. Some legal practices are hallowed by time for good reason – they have been found to be efficacious. Long use has shown them to be worthwhile.

They serve a useful purpose. But does time-honoured legal language serve a useful purpose? That is the real question today