There is a belief, surprisingly durable, that legal writing is impressive in proportion to its impenetrability — that the drafter who writes “in the event that” rather than “if” has somehow earned their fee twice over. The belief is wrong, and it is worth saying plainly why: a legal document exists to be acted upon, and a document is acted upon correctly only insofar as it is understood. A clause the client cannot understand is a latent dispute. A letter the lay reader must have translated is a cost imposed on the very person the writer serves.

The law has taken a side

Plain language is no longer merely a stylistic preference; in important areas it is a legal requirement. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that written terms in consumer contracts be transparent — expressed in plain and intelligible language — and a term that is ambiguous is read in the meaning most favourable to the consumer. The drafter of obscure prose, in other words, now drafts against their own client. The courts, for their part, construe contracts by asking what a reasonable person with the parties’ background knowledge would understand the words to mean; prose that no reasonable person can parse invites the court to do the drafter’s work over again, with no promise of the same answer.

The disciplines that do the work

Plain English drafting is not simplification of substance. It is the removal of every obstacle between the substance and the reader. The disciplines are few and learnable.

  • Prefer the short sentence. One proposition per sentence, as a working rule. Where a sentence must carry conditions, break them into numbered limbs rather than nesting them in commas.
  • Prefer the active voice. “The tenant must repair the fence” tells the reader who must act. “The fence must be repaired” starts an argument about by whom.
  • Use defined terms sparingly, and honestly. A defined term earns its place when it genuinely shortens the document. A definition that surprises the reader — where “the Property” quietly excludes the garage — is a trap, and traps are what plain drafting exists to abolish.
  • Delete the ritual phrases. “For the avoidance of doubt” announces doubt. “Hereinbefore” means nothing that “above” does not. Each archaism costs attention the reader should be spending on substance.
  • Structure for the reader, not the writer. Headings that describe, clauses that follow the life of the transaction in order, and the critical obligations placed where they will be found — not buried in clause 14.3(b)(ii).

Clarity is a professional duty

None of this is cosmetic. The solicitor’s and barrister’s duty runs to the client, and the client’s comprehension is part of the service: a client who signs what they do not understand has not truly given instructions. In my own practice the test applied to every engagement — pleading, contract, letter or article — is the same and is unforgiving: could the intelligent lay reader, on one careful reading, say accurately what this document requires of whom?

Where the answer is no, the document is not finished. The law is complicated enough in substance. Its expression, at least, should be on the reader’s side.