Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)

[Carol]

elfundeb wrote:
>
> Carol's original:
> Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify.

Carol responds:
Just for clarification, I didn't write this sentence. I found it online. I couldn't have invented it. I don't speak legalese. I could probably have found a better (or, rather, a worse) example, but I didn't want to take the time.
> 
> Carol's rewrite:
> I *think* this sentence means roughly, "If you are not a party to this court but are subpoenaed to testify under oath, you may designate one or more persons who consent to testify on your behalf and you may determine the matters on which each person will testify."

<snip>

> Debbie's defense of legalese:
> I'm a lawyer and I'm going to defend the original example, even though sometimes the complexity of sentences in statutes (and contracts) makes my head spin.  Lots of legal writing could be made more layperson-friendly.  The one Carol quoted is actually quite clear and consisely written.  <snip> However, the drafter's objective is to convey the intended meaning with precision, so that persons applying or interpreting those provisions will carry out the intent of the drafters.

> Both Carol's and Ali's rewrites sacrifice clarity for readability.  Each one omits important information about the scope of the rule.  Neither Carol's nor Ali's rewrite conveys the important points that (1) the rule allowing a non-party who has been subpoenaed to designate persons to testify only applies to non-natural persons, such as corporations, trusts, partnerships, etc., or (2) the person designated (an individual) must be a person with a position of responsibility for the organization. <snip> Carol's rewrite also does not make clear that the rule only applies to depositions (which is not the same as testifying in court).  

Carol responds:
While I agree that many examples of legalese are less clear and less concise than this one, I disagree that it's "quite clear and concise." Clarity and readability are essentially the same thing, or, at least, clarity is the primary and most important element of readability. I think you mean that the legalese is necessary for *precision* as opposed to clarity. The lawyers who formulate these contracts want their meaning to be unmistakable *by other lawyers.* My concern, in contrast, is intelligibility to the average person on the street, the nonslawyers who so often sign contracts without a clue as to what they are signing.

Elfundeb:

The sentence doesn't explain what a deposition is, but most statutes and contracts have a 'definitions" section which lays out all of the jargon, legal and otherwise, used in the contract and lets the reader know what the parties to the contract intended them to mean.)  This makes the document clear, even though it may be annoying for the reader to have to refer to the definitions section.

Carol responds:
Jargon is the whole problem. We shouldn't need a definitions section. That was why I reworded "subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition" as "subpoenaed to testify under oath," which reflects my (undoubtedly faulty) understanding of what a deposition is.

My question is, how would you rewrite the original sentence in plain English that a non-lawyer would understand? No jargon allowed. :-) 

Elfundeb: 
> I believe the legal profession has greatly improved in its ability to use plain English. <snip> Using shorthand terms with well recognized legal meanings makes the language more legally precise. 

Carol responds:
Using shorthand terms with meanings that are well recognized by members of the legal profession may well make such writing More *legally* precise, but that's not the same as "plain English," which can be understood by any fifteen-year-old or even twelve-year-old native English speaker. Sure, getting rid of "party of the first part" is a good beginning, but the legal profession could go a lot further toward writing that is simultaneously precise (for the benefit of lawyers and, possibly, their clients) and clear (for the benefit of the rest of us).

Elfundeb:
> A definitions section helps, although a layperson may require an additional explanation.  (This is why homebuyers generally benefit from obtaining legal help.) <snip>

Carol responds:
Homebuyers wouldn't need legal help if contracts were written in plain English.
> 
Debbie:
>  There is obviously no need for that today, but traditional phrasing with a well understood legal meaning is hard to eliminate.

Carol responds:
No doubt, but that doesn't mean it *shouldn't* be eliminated (rather like pollution and litter and, IMO, the Electoral College). Lawyers who *can* write in language that's both precise (for the legal profession) and clear (for everyone else) should do so. There's no justification for retaining traditional phrasing that serves neither purpose.
> 
> Debbie
> whose realizes that some of her sentences are very complex, and hopes that they'll pass Carol's sharp editorial eye

Carol:

Your sentences are fine, and I understand your reasoning. I just want to know what the sentence I quoted *means* in plain English, which is why I asked for a translation. Can you find a compromise that a lawyer would approve of (precise and complete, covering all bases) but which is simultaneously clear to a layperson? And I'd also appreciate it if you could give me a definition of "deposition" that I'll remember so that I can add the word to my vocabulary *and* be able to spit out a definition on demand if someone asks me for one. (I'm very bad at that; I'll use a word whose meaning I understand perfectly well, but I'll be at a total loss to define it or even explain what it means.)

Carol, wishing she could have memorized everything she would ever need to know before she turned twenty
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>