Why not just write contracts in plain English?

Because plain English and legal precision are not the same goal, though they often overlap. A term of art like "consideration" carries a fixed legal meaning that a plainer word like "payment" does not — using the plain word can change what the clause actually does. The plain-language movement is right to attack the parts of legal writing that are just inherited habit, not the parts that are doing real work.

What's actually wrong with writing "and/or"?

It is genuinely ambiguous: read literally it can mean A alone, B alone, or both, and courts have criticised it for exactly that reason. Writing "A or B or both" says the same thing without the ambiguity, and costs nothing.

Does "shall" in a statute always mean an obligation?

Usually, but not always — courts sometimes read a "shall" as merely directory rather than mandatory if treating it as compulsory would produce an absurd result the legislature could not have intended. The safer drafting habit is to use "shall" only when you mean a firm obligation, and to say so plainly if you do not.

Is all legal language automatically bad writing?

No. Some of what looks unnecessary exists because a shorter phrase once failed in court, and precision under hostile reading is a real and defensible goal. The skill this topic tests is telling the two apart — asking of any inherited word or phrase whether it still does legal work.

Legal Writing — Language and Law — Characteristics of Legal Language

A sale deed says the seller does "grant, bargain, sell, alien, convey and confirm" the property. Six verbs for one act. Your first instinct is that lawyers are showing off. Some of it is that. But some of those words are there because a court once held that a shorter phrase did not cover something — and telling the two apart is the skill this topic is really about.

In two minutes

Legal language is written for precision under hostile reading, not for elegance, and the exam tests whether you can name its characteristics, explain what each is for, and tell which ones still do legal work and which are just inherited habit.

The reader is looking for a gap. A contract, a statute or a judgment must survive being read years later by someone hunting for an interpretation that helps them — that single fact explains most of the features below.
Terms of art carry a fixed legal meaning. Words like consideration or estoppel cannot be swapped for an ordinary synonym without changing the law itself.
Doublets and triplets are historical, not decorative. Will and testament , give, devise and bequeath paired an Anglo-Saxon word with its French or Latin equivalent so both audiences understood.
Modal verbs do real work. Shall imposes an obligation, may confers a discretion, must states a condition — using them loosely is the commonest drafting error there is.
The test for any extra word: does it do legal work? If not, it is habit, not precision, and the plain-language movement — including the Supreme Court itself — has started saying so.

Why legal language is not ordinary language

Ordinary writing is read by someone who wants to understand you. Legal writing is read by someone looking for a gap. That single difference explains almost everything that follows.

A contract will be read years later by people who were not in the room, possibly by a judge, and certainly by an opponent hunting for an interpretation that helps them. A statute must govern situations its drafter never imagined. A judgment must be applied by courts below for decades. So legal language is built for precision under hostile reading , not for elegance or ease.

That is the honest defence of legal language. The dishonest part is that a great deal of it is simply inherited — copied from a precedent book, itself copied from an English form, itself drafted when clerks were paid by the word.

The characteristics an examiner expects you to list

This is the part that gets asked directly, so learn the list and have one example for each.

Terms of art. Words with a fixed legal meaning that ordinary usage does not carry — consideration , estoppel , ratio decidendi , ultra vires . These are not jargon. Replace "consideration" with "payment" in a contract answer and you have changed the law.

Archaisms. Hereinafter, aforesaid, whereas, witnesseth, hereinbefore, thereunder. Mostly harmless, occasionally useful for pointing backwards without repetition, frequently just habit.

Doublets and triplets. Will and testament. Give, devise and bequeath. Terms and conditions. Null and void. These are a fossil of English legal history, where an Anglo-Saxon word was paired with its French or Latin equivalent so that both audiences understood. Most are now redundant; a few have acquired distinct meanings.

Latin and French survivals. Prima facie, mens rea, res judicata, bona fide, mutatis mutandis ; and from law French, plaintiff, voir dire, estoppel .

Impersonality. The passive voice and the third person. A judgment says "it is held", not "I think". A statute says "no person shall", not "you must not". The effect is to make the rule look like it belongs to the law rather than to the speaker.

Long sentences with embedded qualification. A single section may run two hundred words because every condition must sit inside the same sentence as the rule it qualifies — put it in a separate sentence and you have created an argument about whether it applies.

Formulaic structure. Recitals, operative part, schedules; or cause title, facts, issues, reasoning, order. The reader knows where to look because the shape never changes.

Where precision ends and habit begins

The test is simple and worth stating in an answer: does the extra word do legal work?

"Terms and conditions" — no. "Null and void" — no. But "indemnify and hold harmless" has been argued to cover two different things, and the extra words in a conveyance often exist because a court once found a narrower phrase wanting.

The plain-language movement pushes against the rest, and Indian courts have joined in. In State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood (2022) the Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment it found incomprehensible, and gave guidance on how judgments should be written — an unusual and pointed reminder that obscurity is a defect, not a style.

Five rules you can apply tomorrow

One idea per sentence. If you cannot say a clause aloud in one breath, split it.

Define once, then never vary. If the document says "the Lessee", it says "the Lessee" every single time. Calling her "the tenant" in clause 14 because you wanted variety has just created an argument that you meant somebody else. Elegant variation is a virtue in English composition and a defect in drafting.

Know what your modal verbs do. Shall imposes an obligation. May confers a discretion. Must states a condition. Using them loosely is the single commonest drafting error, and whole cases have turned on whether a "shall" was mandatory or directory.

Avoid "and/or". It is genuinely ambiguous and courts have said so. Write "A or B or both" and the ambiguity disappears.

Mind what the qualifier attaches to. "Charitable institutions and schools in Mumbai" — are the institutions in Mumbai, or only the schools? Courts reach for the last-antecedent rule, but the better answer is to draft so the question never arises.

Ambiguity is the enemy, not length

Students often think the goal of legal writing is brevity. It is not. The goal is that the document can bear only one meaning. Sometimes that takes more words, not fewer.

So when a question asks you to "discuss the characteristics of legal language", the strongest answers do not simply list features. They say what each feature is for , and then admit which ones have outlived their purpose. That is the difference between reciting and understanding.

Cheat sheet

Term of art: A word with a fixed legal meaning ordinary usage does not carry, e.g. consideration, estoppel. Swap it out and you change the law, not just the style.
Archaism: Old forms like hereinafter, aforesaid, witnesseth. Occasionally useful for pointing backward without repetition, often just habit.
Doublet / triplet: Paired synonyms such as null and void, give devise and bequeath. A fossil of pairing Anglo-Saxon with French or Latin so both audiences understood.
Latin and law French survivals: Prima facie, mens rea, bona fide from Latin; plaintiff, voir dire, estoppel from law French.
Impersonality: The passive voice and third person, so the rule reads as belonging to the law rather than to the speaker.
Shall / May / Must: Shall imposes an obligation, may confers a discretion, must states a condition. Using them loosely is the commonest drafting error.
And/or: Genuinely ambiguous and best avoided; write "A or B or both" instead.
Last-antecedent rule: A court's default reading of an ambiguous qualifier as attaching only to the nearest noun phrase before it.
Plain-language movement: A push, now including Indian courts, to write law that a lay reader can actually follow without losing precision.
Elegant variation: Calling the same defined party by two different names for style. A virtue in ordinary prose, a drafting defect in a legal document.

Questions students ask

Why not just write contracts in plain English?: Because plain English and legal precision are not the same goal, though they often overlap. A term of art like "consideration" carries a fixed legal meaning that a plainer word like "payment" does not — using the plain word can change what the clause actually does. The plain-language movement is right to attack the parts of legal writing that are just inherited habit, not the parts that are doing real work.
What's actually wrong with writing "and/or"?: It is genuinely ambiguous: read literally it can mean A alone, B alone, or both, and courts have criticised it for exactly that reason. Writing "A or B or both" says the same thing without the ambiguity, and costs nothing.
Does "shall" in a statute always mean an obligation?: Usually, but not always — courts sometimes read a "shall" as merely directory rather than mandatory if treating it as compulsory would produce an absurd result the legislature could not have intended. The safer drafting habit is to use "shall" only when you mean a firm obligation, and to say so plainly if you do not.
Is all legal language automatically bad writing?: No. Some of what looks unnecessary exists because a shorter phrase once failed in court, and precision under hostile reading is a real and defensible goal. The skill this topic tests is telling the two apart — asking of any inherited word or phrase whether it still does legal work.