An MIT study on “legalese” suggests this convoluted language acts to convey a sense of authority in legal documents. The researchers also found that even non-lawyers use legalese when asked to write laws.
Maybe you should actually read it instead of talking out of your ass.
In this study, the researchers asked about 200 non-lawyers (native speakers of English living in the United States, who were recruited through a crowdsourcing site called Prolific), to write two types of texts. In the first task, people were told to write laws prohibiting crimes such as drunk driving, burglary, arson, and drug trafficking. In the second task, they were asked to write stories about those crimes.
To test the copy and edit hypothesis, half of the participants were asked to add additional information after they wrote their initial law or story. The researchers found that all of the subjects wrote laws with center-embedded clauses, regardless of whether they wrote the law all at once or were told to write a draft and then add to it later. And, when they wrote stories related to those laws, they wrote in much plainer English, regardless of whether they had to add information later.
My friend got an example of this recently in small town court. He went to court without a lawyer for what should have been a simple case and the judge chewed him out for not having a lawyer. The legal system is there to support the legal system. They want us to hire lawyers and to delay things as much as possible to keep the billable hours high.
They want us to hire lawyers and to delay things as much as possible to keep the billable hours high.
It’s more that the average person is an idiot and also knows exactly nothing about how court proceedings work. What paperwork to file, what deadlines they need to meet, what processes need to be followed.
Someone representing themselves is the surefire way to turn a simple case into a clusterfuck when they do things wrong. Missing paperwork means you need to now reschedule hearings, which pushes other cases. Missing deadlines means you fuck yourself over nothing, and a judge doesn’t particularly want to do that, so now they have to move things around to try to help you out.
Judges hate self-representation because every idiot thinks they can do it and fuck everything up.
Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle, because a person with clear evidence they did not do what they are accused of should not need a lawyer to be allowed to present that evidence in court to defend themselves.
There’s still a LOT of stuff that goes on in the background. If you’re talking about basic traffic court, you never need a lawyer for that.
You generally do for criminal court, and there is nothing simple about criminal cases, even if you think they are on the surface. In fact, that’s kind of the point. You think you know more than you do, and you end up screwing up the process and causing more problems.
Who needs a study to understand that it’s to keep lawyers rich and companies richer?
Maybe you should actually read it instead of talking out of your ass.
That’s not what the study found, it in fact disproves that theory. It’s an interesting study with results that are quite surprising.
My friend got an example of this recently in small town court. He went to court without a lawyer for what should have been a simple case and the judge chewed him out for not having a lawyer. The legal system is there to support the legal system. They want us to hire lawyers and to delay things as much as possible to keep the billable hours high.
It’s more that the average person is an idiot and also knows exactly nothing about how court proceedings work. What paperwork to file, what deadlines they need to meet, what processes need to be followed.
Someone representing themselves is the surefire way to turn a simple case into a clusterfuck when they do things wrong. Missing paperwork means you need to now reschedule hearings, which pushes other cases. Missing deadlines means you fuck yourself over nothing, and a judge doesn’t particularly want to do that, so now they have to move things around to try to help you out.
Judges hate self-representation because every idiot thinks they can do it and fuck everything up.
Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle, because a person with clear evidence they did not do what they are accused of should not need a lawyer to be allowed to present that evidence in court to defend themselves.
There’s still a LOT of stuff that goes on in the background. If you’re talking about basic traffic court, you never need a lawyer for that.
You generally do for criminal court, and there is nothing simple about criminal cases, even if you think they are on the surface. In fact, that’s kind of the point. You think you know more than you do, and you end up screwing up the process and causing more problems.