Court Consider these 3 examples of judicial comment on drafting styles: 2 of the comments are critical and one is positive:

• Lord Reid of the English House of Lords:

This clause does not make sense as it stands. But the client must not be penalized for his lawyer's slovenly drafting … I must consider whether underlying the words used any reasonably clear intention can be discerned …

… no rational person would insert provisions like that. I was surprised to learn that this botched clause had somehow found its way into a standard book of precedents … ³⁰

• Meagher JA of the New South Wales Court of Appeal:

… the difficulty chiefly arises because the policies, and other documents, emanating from the insurer could not be more perplexing if they had been specifically drafted in order to generate ambiguity.³¹

• Heerey J of the Federal Court of Australia considering a document prepared by the plain language unit at the Australian law firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques:

The plain words of the guarantee are conclusive evidence against the Appellant's [the customer's] argument. The guarantee appears to be a standard form document. In contrast to much traditional bank security documentation, it is clear and comprehensible.³²

In fact, plain language is more accurate, more certain, and more precise than traditional legal drafting. This is because when a document is in plain language, the people involved in producing and reviewing the document spend less time and effort struggling to understand it. Instead, their energy goes into getting the content and the style right—that is:

• accurate, certain, and precise; and

• clear for the various audiences who will use the document.