|
4. Is there a problem referring to the "plain-language movement"? It seems to me that continuing to refer to the "plain language movement" raises 2 problems.
People outside the plain-language world who see plain language as a movement usually have a closely related misconception, namely, that plain language is relevant only when writing to "retail consumers"to the proverbial "mums and dads". That misconception further impedes progress. For example, plain-language whether we see it as a movement or an industryhad a major win in 1998, when the United States Securities Exchange Commission implemented regulations that required certain parts of prospectuses aimed at retail investors to be in plain language.10 A few months later I worked on an international prospectus for one of Australia's 10 largest companies. A team of US lawyers from one of the most prominent New York law firms worked on the documents. They told me about a US prospectus they had worked on a few months earlier in which shares were to be offered to retail investors. So they had prepared the relevant parts of the prospectus in plain language to comply with the new SEC requirements. Then after the prospectus was more or less complete, their client company changed its mind and decided that the shares would be offered only to institutional investors. So the lawyers rewrote the plain-language document back into legalese. The mind boggles.
|
| Previous page | Table of Contents | Next page |