are no propositions in economics that cannot be stated in clear, plain language.
There just aren’t”.
215
Yet for all the good intentions of its advocates, plain English on its own is not
the complete answer. This emphasis put on plain English as “the” way to write
is misplaced for two reasons.
First, the key to plain writing is structure. When writing is structured it will
generally be plain and simple. In other words, structure writing and it probably
will be plain, but try to make it plain without structure and any simplicity is
illusory. Prior discussion of how to structure writing points out that the core
problem with much legal writing is not excessive verbiage or clumsy sentences
(these tend to be a symptom of the problem), but lack of a coherent overall
structure, which is a product of a general failure by lawyers to articulate the
true nature of legal reasoning.
216
Second, the obligation of a writer is to communicate, to put the message
across. If the message itself is not inherently plain and simple, attempts to
make it plain will distort the message. As the Federal Court said: “If the
substance of the intended rule is analysed by a lawyer, trained to understand
the implications of various kinds of rules, the appropriate expression is a
consequence of the analysis. 'Plain English' alternatives may really be less
precise, and a self conscious search for them will certainly be a distraction. In
the present case, undistracted attention to the substance of the nature of the
obligations involved would have obviated much perplexity”.
217
In plainer
language the court is saying that the important thing is to convey the meaning.
If one puts absolute priority on composing plain writing, there could be a price
–
that the writing has excessively simplified, and therefore misstated, the ideas
which it is trying to convey.
218
Despite the shortcomings of plain English tenets, their attack on convoluted
sentence structure is well directed, as such structure puts the reader to
___________________
215
“JK Galbraith on the art of good writing” (2006). This is found at:
writing/
216
Chapter 4 Legal Structure of a Text
217
Blunn v Cleaver (1993) 119 ALR 65, 82, per Sheppard, Neaves and
Burchett JJ
218
Klinck (1987) p 367 expresses similar reservations about simplicity.
He argues that it “may reflect over-simplification,” which as Kirby (1990A)
points out at p 704 may fail to “convey the complexity of a legal argument”
and thus will come at a price.
 |
 |
 |