There is an app for everything except translating legalese into english...Why?

If it wasn't made to deceive why don't they want the common person to know the difference between law speak and the words misused in English.

Example the word
Understand in English means 'To comprehend'
Understand in Legalese means- 'To agree with.' (Not 'To stand Under'- that is just silly)

But there are many many more examples like that

reply to post by VforVendettea


Because you haven't created it yet. .. ..

Apps are easy to create with a little know how.

I would imagine that if you did make one to do that, you could rake in some money.

Good Luck.

starred

this'd put too many lawyers and such out of work.. maybe when they've eventually got humanity living in cells and cages some kind of automated system like this would be useful

reply to post by VforVendettea


Remember we are talking about laws. Of course the language will be made to deceive. A lot of people confuse the terms law and justice when they are totally two different things.

It would be fairly easy to translate general legal terms to plain ole English, but nearly impossible to decipher the spirit and intent of specific contract language.

If someone could pull that off, it would be quite a seller

reply to post by VforVendettea
Because law groups probably already filed injunctions to prevent anyone from creating such programs. If you could translate legal terminology into layman's terms easily you would have no use for lawyers. Those sharks will never let that happen without a fight.

Legalese is basically treason and I don't play games with slaver/dark hat, toddlers in poopy diapers, low level wanna be PTB, they don't impress me. I would never obey their words, or even, play the freeman game of not standing or standing but in writing state that anything I do I choose to do out of politeness by denounce all criminal courts and slavery 1000 X infinity. I will sit if its polite to do so, and still remain a real flesh and blood person and still not obey their slave system and still take actions and law suits against any miscarriage of real common law justice. I am judging this procedure as a citizen and employer group and will determine if the employees are doing their job or committing mutiny.

I smell a lawsuit

reply to post by VforVendettea


Here are some answers for you. I kinda like this kind of technical style of writing as it can be very useful for particular kinds of things. There is so much variety of language and this one type should not be thought of some kind of conspiracy.

Legalese" is the lingua franca of logic. It allows those of us who are lawyers to compose contracts, to deal with one another and to protect our clients and even society because there is absolutely no doubt about what we are saying. From that language one cannot pick apart a verbal misphrasing and use THAT to sue, or to claim contract infringement, or to otherwise skew the purpose of what is supposed to be bartering in good faith. That "good faith" part is mostly supported by a language which itself does not have logical errors.

Secondly, most "legalese" is the sum accumulation of centuries' worth of legal precedent. We've agreed (for reasons listed above) that when I say this, I mean this and only this. When the contract reads this, it means this and only this, and I have three centuries (and more!) of legal precedent in every ruling, every current contract and every decision ever made to support the weight of intention in those words.

www.city-data.com...

Legal writing is of two, broad categories: (i) legal analysis and (ii) legal drafting. Legal analysis is two-fold: (1) predictive analysis, and (2) persuasive analysis. In the United States, in most law schools students must learn legal writing; the courses focus on: (1) predictive analysis, i.e., an outcome-predicting memorandum (positive or negative) of a given action for the attorney's client; and (2) persuasive analysis, e.g., motions and briefs. Although not as widely taught in law schools, legal drafting courses exist; other types of legal writing concentrate upon writing appeals or on interdisciplinary aspects of persuasion.en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Tindalos2013

Legalese" is the lingua franca of logic. It allows those of us who are lawyers to compose contracts, to deal with one another and to protect our clients and even society because there is absolutely no doubt about what we are saying.

i'm sorry, but

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

that is all.

actually i take that back. that isn't all. legalese is just as ambiguous as common english usages. i mean, no one ever debates the meaning of laws and rulings because they're so clear, right?

i understand the need to clearly define terms, BUT applying legal definitions to words that have opposite or unrelated meanings is a dirty tactic.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Not me - I've been a 12:00 flasher ever since I traded in my Apple IIc for a Dell in 1993. Gave up trying ever since.

Wiki awnsers are good at translating legalese.

Someone asked what was the meaning of the maxim he who be deceived, let him be deceived.

Interesting answer in plain English..... wiki.answers.com...

Originally posted by VforVendettea
If it wasn't made to deceive why don't they want the common person to know the difference between law speak and the words misused in English.

Example the word
Understand in English means 'To comprehend'
Understand in Legalese means- 'To agree with.' (Not 'To stand Under'- that is just silly)

But there are many many more examples like that

Most words used in law are pretty obvious to understand in the context that are given, however in some circumstance, will be given a specific meaning/ interpretation. The same for any technical language, ie medicine, engineering or physics.

There is an app called the law guide (which for an app is pretty good but lacking much also), personally I think you would be better of with an updated law dictionary like oxfords dictionary of law.

I'm not sure about your above example though, in the UK understand is taken to mean comprehend in both legal and every day use. ie "it is my understanding" or "do you understand the question"? does not mean do you agree with the question.

There has been a move recently to move away from " legalese " in law and to use plain English where possable, however sometime legal terminology is easier when describing legal terms, ie stare decisis, pretty much describes the whole system of precedence or mens rea describes the mental element a of crime, so it makes writing easier.

I also think that there may be some confusion on this thread between legal terminology and statutory interpretation, ie some times the wording of a law, if applied literally, can have absurd results. ie if the literal meaning of bigamy was applied then technically it would be impossible to commit the offence as the second marrage would be void, so its interpreted to mean going through the same legal ceremony of marriage..