[1] From Christopher Cox, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; testimony before the Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives (February 26, 2008):
“It’s a sad truth that our government’s laws and rules are not only mostly written by lawyers, but they seem also to be written primarily for the benefit of other lawyers. This makes compliance with the laws more expensive, because people who have to follow the laws and rules need to hire lawyers to find out what they mean.
“Legalese does more than waste time and money. When laws and rules are hard to understand, it’s more likely that people who are trying to comply won’t be able to do so, because they don’t understand what’s being asked of them.
“The government gets less of the behavior that it wants; the people trying to be good and do what government wants get frustrated and angry; our economy is less efficient because of all the expense involved; and overall, confidence in government is eroded, because when poorly written laws and rules are enforced, people view them as unfair and arbitrary.”
[2] From Bryan Garner’s interviews with US Supreme Court Justices, Scribes Journal of Legal Writing Volume 13 at
http://www.scribes.org/sites/default/files/Scribes-Journal_Volume-13_Garner-transcripts.pdfJustice Clarence Thomas on accessibility:
“I’d love one day for someone at a gas station who is not a lawyer to come up to me and say to me, “You know, I read your opinion, and I don’t agree with you.” Wouldn’t that be wonderful? “I’m not a lawyer, I read your opinion, I understood it, I don’t agree with you, but thanks for making it accessible.” So we talk of it in terms of accessibility.”
Justice Stephen Breyer on clarity for ordinary persons:
Garner: "Do you think it matters whether ordinary people can understand judicial opinions?"
Justice Breyer: “If an ordinary person who is not a lawyer can understand it, I think that gives weight to what the Court does, and law is supposed to be intelligible. They should be able to follow it without having to take special vocabulary courses. And the purpose of an opinion is to give your reasons, and you give your reasons both for guidance, but also it should be possible for readers to criticize the writer. Now, people can’t criticize what I say, they can’t explain why they think it’s wrong, unless they can understand.”
[3] Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, third Chief Justice of the Republic of Singapore: “I think that Court of Appeal judgments should be expressed in language that a reasonably-educated layman can understand.”