Legal language (was: Which E-mail Disclaimer is Best?)

["Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

John Posada opines: <<Something else to keep in mind when dealing with
lawyers.  Unlike us, where we want a sentence to mean ONLY and EXACTLY what
we want, they don't want the language to be absoluely specific. They WANT
ambiquity. It makes it alot easier to apply it to aa wider range of
situations.>>

Not necessarily. I've spoken to lawyers (family friends and otherwise) about
this, and have heard two mutually contradictory positions. Officially and on
the record, lawyers claim that legal wording is designed to be clear to the
point that its meaning _cannot_ be mistaken; that's part of the reason
behind the whole "party of the first part" and other use of jargon that's
impenetrable to outsiders. The unofficial, off-the-record claim is that
lawyers intentionally write inflated, bloated, unclear text becaues (a) they
get paid by the hour/word, (b) nobody but a lawyer can understand the
wording, and (c) the wording always leaves loopholes open that a clever
lawyer can exploit. I offer these as anecdotal evidence (Canadian context);
take your own pick as to which you feel prevails.

The techwhirler tie-ins? Three things: First, it's important to remember
that our goal in using language is to favor the good kind of jargon (words
familiar to our audience that communicate more effectively and unequivocally
than a longer, more verbose description) and avoid the bad kind of jargon
(unfamiliar words designed to obscure meaning). This also serves as a
reminder that when we're not writing for our own colleagues, we have to
check our assumptions at the door and remember what it is to be a reader who
doesn't share our secret knowledge. Second, it's a reminder that most of us
(myself included) lack the knowledge to edit legal wording safely. Leave
that to the lawyers and you'll never be the one on the hook for liability;
dabble in something you don't have expertise in, and you could find yourself
in very hot water indeed. Third, technical writers can still do useful work
in initially clarifying legal wording--provided we make sure to cover our
tender backsides by making sure a lawyer takes responsibility for the final
wording. (Been there, done that.)

<<Example...the program "The West Wing"...(I love the writing in the
program)...>>

Not to start an off-topic thread, but emphatic grunts of approval from this
corner. If we 'whirlers wrote that well, people _would_ read the fine
manuals.

--Geoff Hart, FERIC, Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
"User's advocate" online monthly at
www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/usersadvocate.html

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."-- James D. Nicoll

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.