> [Many awkward sounding phrases] might be very difficult to understand at first, but their near universal meaning makes them more valuable than writing your own 'clearer' version.
The modern trend is unmistakably in favor of plain English. See, e.g., the work of legal-writing guru Bryan Garner, who recently co-authored a book on the subject with Justice Scalia.
As Ken Adams rightly points out: "Caselaw is full of instances of courts displaying a poor grasp of semantics. It would be foolhardy to rely on courts to be arbiters of everyday language." He also notes that "[c]ourts in different jurisdictions have seen different meanings in everyday usages. ... relying on courts to determine the meaning of everyday usages is to invite inconsistency." See http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/03/29/mscd-outside-us/
The SEC has also been weighing in: For 10 years now, the Commission has required securities filings to be written in plain English, and has bounced more than a few that aren't. See http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/127259.html.
The modern trend is unmistakably in favor of plain English. See, e.g., the work of legal-writing guru Bryan Garner, who recently co-authored a book on the subject with Justice Scalia.
As Ken Adams rightly points out: "Caselaw is full of instances of courts displaying a poor grasp of semantics. It would be foolhardy to rely on courts to be arbiters of everyday language." He also notes that "[c]ourts in different jurisdictions have seen different meanings in everyday usages. ... relying on courts to determine the meaning of everyday usages is to invite inconsistency." See http://adamsdrafting.com/system/2009/03/29/mscd-outside-us/
The SEC has also been weighing in: For 10 years now, the Commission has required securities filings to be written in plain English, and has bounced more than a few that aren't. See http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/127259.html.