Why do lawyers insist on the mystique of elaborate, elevated or simply obsolete language?
This week’s Law Society Gazette provides more interest. The Susskind debate rages on with this letter complaining about the adoption of “the terminology of the looming competition” whether grocery stores or broader business models.
The letter ridicules the use of “Transparency” in favour of the author’s language such as “Concatenating”.
Conca… what? To save you time, I have already googled it. Click here for the definition if, like me, you are unable to understand this kind of language.
Most sweetly, the letter is entitled in the published Gazette, albeit presumably by the editor, not the letter’s author, “Mind your language”.
The very same page in the printed Gazette also contains the following correction.
“In last week’s Comment, the sentence which read “English Law, as the locus regit actum, applies to the extension of the document’ , should have read “…-applies to the execution of the document”.
To reiterate the opening question, why do lawyers insist on the mystique of elaborate, elevated or simply obsolete language?